Tag: Delhi High Court

Delhi HC To Hear Plea Challenging UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Exam On July 3

The Delhi High Court has said it will hear on July 3 a plea challenging the preliminary examination of Civil Services Examination, 2023 conducted by the UPSC.

The petition, filed by 17 civil services aspirants, seeking quashing of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2023, and for re-conducting the preliminary test and general studies paper 1 and 2 came up for hearing before a vacation bench of justice Manoj Jain.

The plea also challenged the press note issued by the UPSC on June 12 declaring the results of the preliminary examination, and sought direction to the commission to publish the answer key with immediate effect.

The judge ordered listing of the petition on July 3.

During the hearing, advocate Naresh Kaushik, appearing for the UPSC, raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, saying the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was the competent forum for hearing the matter.

The petition, filed through advocate Rajeev Kumar Dubey, said the petitioners were aggrieved by the “arbitrariness” of the commission in conducting the entire recruitment cycle.

“Not providing to the students the answer key of an exam they have appeared for, not considering the representations of the candidates despite a particular time window being provided for the same, and asking questions, which are disproportionately vague, testing candidates’ ability to answer only on the basis of guesswork, is not only arbitrary but defies all principles of fairness, logic and rationality,” it said.

It said when a competitive exam is conducted, the answer key to the multiple choice questions is prepared in advance so it can be released after the exam has been conducted, thereby giving the candidates a fair idea of evaluation.

However, in a recent press note of June 12, it mentioned that “candidates are also informed that marks, cut off marks and answer keys of CS(P) Examination, 2023 will be uploaded on the Commission’s website i.e. https://upsc.gov.in only after the entire process of the Civil Services Examination 2023 is over, that is, after the declaration of final result”.

The petition said almost all state Public Service Commissions and other authorities like the High Court of Delhi in respect of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, IITs, NLUs and IIMs release the provisional answer key within a week of the conduct of an examination and invite objections from the candidates. They then release the final answer key by modifying their provisional answer key based on the objections, it added.

June 29, 2023
Delhi High Court refuses to expedite hearing of petition related to ‘Adipurush’

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined urgent hearing of a plea moved by a right-wing group seeking direction to delete or modify alleged objectionable scenes from ‘Adipurush’. The Om Raut-directed film released nationwide on June 16 and the petition, filed as a public interest litigation, claims that the film’s characters differ from the portrayal of these religious figures in the Hindu epic Ramayana.

The counsel for the petitioner, Hindu Sena president Vishnu Gupta, sought listing of the petition on Wednesday or Friday, which was initially listed for June 30.

The lawyer said, I am seeking the petition to be listed today or Friday, as there are many controversial scenes in the film.

The lawyer further argued, when the teaser of the film was released, there was an uproar. The director promised to remove some parts, but it was not removed. Similarly when the trailer of the film released it happened again, he promised again. Presently it is also affecting international relations. Even Nepal has banned the film.

However, a vacation bench of Justices Tara Vitasta Ganju and Amit Mahajan refused to list the matter urgently.

Justice Ganju orally remarked, You are already well aware of the release of the film. What’s stopping you if it’s already released?

The PIL also challenges the certification granted to the film under the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and has named the director, producer and official parties as respondents.

The petitioner states that the film hurts the sentiments of the Hindu community by portraying religious characters in a wrong and unwarranted manner which is against the narratives of the works of authors like Maharishi Valmiki and Tulsidas.

The petition argues that the film’s portrayal of characters like Ravana (played by Saif Ali Khan) and Lord Hanuman is completely alien to Indian civilization.

The petition alleged, the bearded look of the character of Ravana, played by Saif Ali Khan in the film, is hurting the sentiments of the Hindu community as the Hindu Brahmin Ravana has been wrongly shown as a terrifying face which represents Hindu civilisation, There is gross disrespect to Hindu religious figures, idols, idols, etc.

The petition also claims that the wrong portrayal of Hindu religious characters in Ramanand Sagar’s ‘Ramayan’ has drawn criticism and outrage from across the country, including the actors portraying these characters.

The petition claimed, the appearances including hair style, beard, mustache and attire are well defined as per the image created in those epics. Any change in these images by filmmakers and directors and actors will certainly hurt the sentiments of worshippers, devotees and those of religious faith.

The film stars Prabhas, Kriti Sanon and Saif Ali Khan in the lead roles of Lord Ram, Sita and Ravana respectively.

–IANS

June 21, 2023
Applicant Has Discretion To Choose HC Or Trial Court For Anticipatory Bail: Delhi HC

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court has observed that applicants have the discretion to choose between the High Court and the trial court while filing anticipatory bail petitions and this choice cannot be curtailed by a narrow interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Is. Justice Chandradhari Singh made the remarks while hearing a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2021.

The ED has registered the case under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice Singh said that there is no bar on directly approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail.

The court emphasized that the decision to approach the High Court or the Sessions Court rests with the applicant, as both the courts have the same jurisdiction.

Both the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to try such cases.

He insisted that this discretion should not be restricted by a narrow interpretation of Section 438 of the CrPC.

Stating that personal liberty should not depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions.

The judge said that persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the provision should be interpreted in a manner that upholds this principle.

Justice Singh emphasized the importance of retaining the beneficial nature of Section 438 and clarified that the court’s observations have been made in the context that the power to grant anticipatory bail is considered extraordinary and should be granted only in specific cases.

Therefore, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain bail applications under section 438 even if the applicant had not previously approached the Court of Session.

–IANS

June 12, 2023
Delhi High Court’s order against RBI and SBI reserved

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the notifications of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the State Bank of India (SBI) that allow exchange of currency notes without any identity proof. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad said, “We will pass appropriate orders.” Senior RBI advocate Parag P. Tripathi objected to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), saying it should be dismissed.

The PIL has been filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.

Tripathi said it was a statutory exercise and not demonetisation.

He said, none of the points raised by my learned friend affect the public issues in any way.

The PIL states that the notifications published on May 19 and 20 are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The plea has also sought a direction to the RBI and SBI to ensure that Rs 2,000 notes are deposited in the respective bank accounts only, so that black money and people with disproportionate assets can be identified.

To weed out corruption, benami transactions and secure fundamental rights of citizens, the PIL, which has the RBI, SBI and the Union Home and Finance Ministries as respondents, has sought a direction to the Center to take action with respect to the same. Gives

Recently, it was announced by the Center that every family having an Aadhaar card and a bank account. So, why is RBI allowing exchange of Rs 2000 notes without obtaining identity proof. It is also necessary to mention that 80 crore BPL families get it for free. This means that 800 million Indians rarely use Rs 2,000 notes. Therefore, the petitioner has also sought a direction to RBI and SBI to take steps to ensure that Rs 2000 notes are deposited only in bank accounts.

–IANS

May 23, 2023
Delhi High Court reserves order on Sisodia’s bail in excise policy case

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Manish Sisodia’s bail plea. The CBI is probing the Delhi Excise scam case. The senior Aam Aadmi Party leader had approached the High Court on April 3 seeking bail on the grounds of his wife’s illness.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma directed the jail superintendent to provide video conferencing facility to Sisodia so that he could talk to his wife every alternate day between 3 to 4 pm as per jail rules.

The CBI had on Wednesday opposed the bail plea arguing that the former deputy chief minister was in power and had political clout.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju appeared on behalf of the investigating agency. He said that Sisodia controlled various departments, including Excise, and deliberately destroyed some evidence and a mobile phone on the day the case was referred to the CBI by the LG.

The CBI also referred to a missing file relating to the documents before Justice Sharma’s bench and said that it might have gone missing as it contained some comments which were against them.

The ASG said: Our submission is that the file was destroyed or it went missing. We have evidence to show that the last one was handed over to him. There was a cabinet note in it.

Earlier, a Delhi court on Monday extended Sisodia’s judicial custody till May 23 in a case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

In the case being probed by the CBI, a Delhi court had extended Sisodia’s judicial custody till May 12.

–IANS

May 11, 2023
Hearing against Rahul and Kejriwal in Delhi High Court on August 7

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Wednesday fixed August 7 for hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). In this, a demand has been made to direct the CBI to investigate and prosecute Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Both the leaders have been accused of making misleading statements against the central government. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad granted time to the petitioner to file certain documents.

The court has fixed the matter for further hearing on August 7.

Petitioner, social activist and farmer Surjit Singh Yadav, in a PIL filed through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, has also sought the court’s direction to the news channels to remove false and misleading statements of the two leaders.

It has been said in the petition that both the leaders have made a false and misleading claim on the central government to forgive lakhs of crores of rupees to the capitalists. This has affected the prestige of the government.

–IANS

May 10, 2023
Excise policy case: Delhi High Court refuses to extend interim bail of liquor baron

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to extend the interim bail granted to liquor baron Sameer Mahendru in a money laundering case related to the now scrapped liquor excise policy. Mahendru was directed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma to surrender before jail authorities on May 1, as the judge observed that the practice of granting interim bail cannot be turned into an evergreen process or used in place of regular bail. Could

According to Mahendru’s counsel the doctor has possibly scheduled Mahendru’s surgery for May 5, thus the court directed the jail authorities to take the accused to the doctor on May 4. The court said- The petitioner, if necessary and advised by the doctor, may be admitted to the hospital. Guards of jail officials will be posted there. The wife and minor children of the petitioner shall be given facility to visit and assist him. He will be given food as per the advice of the doctor.

Justice Sharma further asked the doctor to submit a report detailing the period required for postoperative care after the surgery. If the doctor determined that Mahendru’s surgery was not necessary, he would be sent to prison; However, if necessary, he will remain hospitalized till May 15, when the court will hear the matter once again.

Court said- This court is of the firm opinion that everyone has the right to adequate and effective medical treatment. This Court also accepts the view of the Senior Counsel (for the accused) that there is always an issue of trust and confidence between the patient and the doctor.

The high court said the accused would have to bear the security personnel posted there and the cost of his surgery. The high court had on Tuesday sought response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Mahendru’s bail plea on medical grounds. Justice Sharma asked the ED to submit a status report and verification report regarding Mahendru’s health claims.

His counsel had claimed that the trial court had subsequently extended the businessman’s interim bail, which was granted on February 28, as the health of the accused was still poor and he had placed on record recent medical documents. On February 28, the court granted interim bail to Mahendru on medical grounds for a period of 30 days after he claimed that he was suffering from various ailments. Later on March 29, the trial court extended Mahendru’s interim bail.

Earlier this month, the court had again extended the interim bail granted to Mahendru for a period of seven days while adjourning the matter due to the ongoing protests by the advocates. The ED had earlier alleged that Mahendru was the kingpin and focal point around which the entire criminal conspiracy evolved and was essential for setting up the cartel and ensuring repayment of the kickback amount.

Mahendru has been chargesheeted by both the investigating agencies.

–IANS

April 27, 2023
Sisodia told Delhi High Court, CBI’s figures are just paper

New Delhi (IANS) | Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not have any evidence to show his involvement in the alleged Delhi Excise Policy case, and he was being targeted so that he could be jailed. Can be kept CBI Judge M.K. Nagpal (Rouse Avenue Court) had on April 5 rejected Sisodia’s bail plea.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for the AAP leader, told a division bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma that barring Sisodia, all other accused in the CBI case have been released on bail.

He also said that the probe agency has no evidence to show that the AAP leader tampered with the evidence.

Krishnan argued on behalf of Sisodia, he says I do not cooperate. This can never be a ground for denying me bail. I don’t need to cooperate, confess or answer questions the way they want me to. The Constitution allows me to answer the way I want.

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, another counsel for Sisodia, said the CBI figures are only on paper and no evidence of money transaction has been found.

Mathur argued on behalf of Sisodia, he has made me the main mastermind of this alleged conspiracy through Vijay Nair. But Vijay Nair was arrested in September 2022 and released in November even before the charge sheet was filed. I was called for questioning for the second time in February 2023. Therefore, all these allegations about me that I am capable of influencing witnesses are completely false.

The High Court, after hearing the matter in detail, listed the matter for further hearing on April 26.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, CBI’s counsel will present his case in the next hearing.

Justice Sharma also asked the ASG to explain how the excise policy operates and the probe agency may call its investigating officer to explain to him.

While denying bail to Sisodia, CBI judge Nagpal had said that Sisodia could prima facie be held to be the mastermind behind the criminal conspiracy.

He had remarked that advance bribe payments of around Rs 90-100 crore were meant for Sisodia and his associates in the AAP government.

The order said that at this stage of the investigation, the court is not inclined to release Sisodia on bail as his release may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and its progress would also be seriously hampered.

–IANS

April 20, 2023
Sexual offense victim has the right to be heard at every stage: Delhi High Court

New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that as per law, a victim of sexual offense is not required to be made a party to any criminal proceedings initiated by the state government or the accused. “There is no requirement in law to make the victim a party, that is, to make the victim a party to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused,” the court said.

Citing a recent Supreme Court judgment (Jagjit Singh and others vs. Ashish Mishra et al. Monu and others), Justice Anoop Jairam Bhambhani observed that even though the victim now has an ‘unfettered participation right’ in all criminal proceedings, she There is no reason to make a party, unless specifically provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Talking about the proceedings related to bail, the court noted that Section 439(1A) of CrPC says that a victim need not become a party to file a petition.

The judge observed: “In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), section 439(1A) of CrPC should be expanded to include the right of the victim to be heard even in petitions where a The accused seeks anticipatory bail. A convict seeks suspension of sentence, parole, furlough or other such interim relief.”

Justice Bhambani was hearing the bail plea of an accused, who has been in custody since the registration of an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POSCO) Act.

The court directed its Registry to carefully scrutinize all filings relating to sexual offenses and ensure that the anonymity and confidentiality of the victim or victims is strictly maintained.

Name, parents, address, social media credentials and photographs of the victim or victim are some of the details that should not be revealed in the filing, which also includes the memo to the parties.

The Court observed: “Though, if the foregoing direction is scrupulously followed, the identifying particulars shall not appear in the cause-list, the Registry shall, through utmost care, ensure that such particulars do not appear in any cause-list.” not be reflected in any way.

The court directed that files or paper-books of cases relating to sexual offenses filed in the High Court should not be provided to any person after proper verification of identity certificates of the parties to the litigation.

The court said, “It is also directed to prevent dissemination of identity details to any other person or agency even within the High Court that all services effected on the prosecutrix/victim/survivor shall be done only through the Investigating Officer on 24.09. .2019 dated Practice Directions and a copy of the petition or application shall be served on the prosecutrix/victim/survivor.”

The investigating officers were directed by the court to wear only plain clothes while dealing with such cases to avoid any unwanted attention on the prosecutrix or the victim.

The court also directed the Registrar General to bring this decision to the notice of the Chief Justice, so that appropriate practice guidelines or notices or notifications may be framed.

–IANS

April 19, 2023
New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the Law Commission to prepare a report on Uniform Judicial Code (UJC). A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Verma asked Upadhyay to seek clarification with regard to an order passed by the Supreme Court, which had dismissed a similar petition filed by him.

The Supreme Court in its order had said, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for liberty to withdraw the petition. It has been withdrawn.

Accordingly, the PIL was withdrawn by Upadhyay. However, the court granted him liberty to seek clarification on the apex court’s order.

“The petition is withdrawn with liberty,” the bench said.

The petition was filed in the High Court on April 13 by petitioner-lawyer and BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay.

Upadhyay, in his petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), had said that there is a vast difference between the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court in comparison of judicial terms, abbreviations, norms, phrasing, court fees and case registration procedures . ,

The petition cited examples of various different wordings employed by the benches of the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court and claimed that these had led to misunderstanding.

Upadhyay also drew attention to disparities in court fees demanded in other states for cases with similar facts and values.

The petition states, the disparate court fees in different states discriminate between citizens on the basis of their place of birth and residence.

It further claimed that courts are demanding different court fees, apart from using different judicial terminologies, phrases and acronyms and adopting different standards and procedures for case registration, which violates the rule of law and justice. is against the rights of

In order to standardize judicial terms, acronyms, norms, phrasing, court fee structures and case registration procedures, the PIL prays that the Law Commission of India be directed to prepare a detailed report on WHCHU in consultation with the High Courts .

The PIL prayed that the Ministry of Law be directed to take appropriate steps to prepare a comprehensive report on UJC in consultation with the High Courts and constitute an expert committee to prepare a comprehensive report on UJC in consultation with the High Courts. be formed.

–IANS

April 18, 2023