Tag: #DelhiHC

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Facts

• It is purported based on some information that, 5 passengers namely Wang Wei Ting, Chen Po Shuo, Ms. Chen Hsui Yun, Liao Kuan Hua, and Ms. Chan Kai Li, holders of Republic of China (Taiwan) would be departing from IGI Airport, by Air India Flight No. AI 310 to Hong Kong with its Scheduled departure. It is averred that as per the information obtained, the mentioned passengers would be having a huge quantity of foreign currency on their persons or in hand baggage, and attempt to smuggle out the same.
• It is alleged that the respondent officers reached the Airport and intercepted the said 5 passengers at Boarding Gate. It is alleged that their baggage was searched and a total amount of USD 4,49,600 was recovered. The said amount was seized. It is averred that the petitioner was enlarged on bail imposing the condition that the petitioner could not travel abroad without the court’s permission.
• It is further alleged that the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to go to her native country for 6 months as the petitioner is a foreign resident, and is facing financial crises, and has no accommodation in India. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the court allowed the petitioner to visit abroad for 6 months on some conditions. The said order was challenged by the Department-respondent before the District Judge, Delhi.
• The respondent-Department has filed a reply. It is alleged that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner is a foreigner so she has no interest in India and in case the petitioner is allowed to go abroad she would not return to India to face trial. It is further submitted that if the order of learned CMM is upheld and the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, the petitioner shall be directed to deposit in FDR or cash for an amount of at least 50% of the foreign currency recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act 1962. It is denied that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the petitioner is a foreign national and is a part of the conspiracy and if she is allowed to go abroad, there is no chance of her returning and facing trial.

Petitioner’s Contention

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a carrier and she tried to smuggle foreign. He further submitted that the petitioner has remained in India for about 18 months and the petitioner, being a woman aged about 54 years, is suffering from extreme hardship in living in Delhi. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s spouse, aged about 64 years, is suffering from various old aged ailments and requires a regular medical check-up and care and there is no one to take care of her family. He submitted that the sibling of the petitioner has met with an accident and is admitted to the hospital. It is further submitted that learned CMM, based on the medical report and photographs which were filed by the petitioner along with the application, Petitioner should be granted permission to visit her country and she would not misuse the freedom to go to her country. If permission is granted by this Court, she would appear in Court to face the trial. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not averse to the petitioner going abroad but subject to deposit 50% of the amount of recovered foreign currency from the petitioner, which is onerous. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

Respondent’s Contention

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is allowed to travel to her country, but the petitioner shall be directed to deposit at least 50% of the foreign currency in the form of cash or the form of an FDR with this Court of the amount recovered.

Judgment

Petitioner, given the facts discussed above, is allowed to travel to her country, i.e. Taiwan, for 6 months on deposit of the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- lakhs in the form of an FDR in the name of Registrar General of this Court, and also subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner must also furnish an undertaking to report back in the Court on 08.12.2021, at the time of depositing FDR, failing which the amount of FDR shall stand forfeited without giving any further notice;
• The petitioner must furnish her address during her stay aboard;
• Petitioner should not seek an extension of her stay abroad on any ground including medical grounds;
• The petitioner must authorize her counsel to receive notice on her behalf during her stay abroad;
• During the stay of the petitioner abroad, no adjournment will be sought by her counsel for lack of instructions from her account;
• The petitioner must surrender back her passport on her return from abroad;
• Petitioner should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any custom authorities or tamper with the evidence;
• Petitioner should not indulge or commit such like offence(s) again – similar to the offence to which she is accused now.

The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

A petition was moved in the Hon’ble Delhi Court, to have some constructive approach from the Ministry of Health External Affairs, to get assisted for availing a tourist visa from the High Commission of Australia. The whole sole objective of filing this petition was to provide better medical assistance to the petitioner’s son, who is residing in Australia.

The petition has been moved by a widow, to procure help for a Tourist Visa from the Australian High Commission as her son is suffering from End-Stage Renal Failure and is in a critical condition. He is even admitted to St Vincent Hospital, Melbourne on June 8. The plea is solely directed towards the Union of India, via the Ministry of External Affairs to assist the petitioner from getting Visa Visitor (Tourist) subclass 600 from Australian High Commission.

Her plea clearly stated that despite such critical condition of her son suffering from such deadly disease, there has been no such positive response to her applications from both, the Ministry of External Affairs, India & the Australian High Commission. The petitioner also requested help, from the Ministry of External Affairs by contacting and supervising the hospital authorities in the ongoing medical treatments.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

-Report by Muskan Chanda

On the fourth of June, 2021, the High Court of Delhi dismissed Juhi Chawla’s civil proceedings against the launch of 5G and obligatory a significant penalty of twenty lakhs. The complainant is seeking leave to sue in representative interest on the bottom that the launch of 5G technology can cause stupendous damage to the public, as well as future generations, and also the proceedings, involve problems relating to public health of the current as well as future generations.

Plaintiff’s Submission

• The complainant has been in public bell ringing against the technology and its aspect effects conjointly the aspect effects of electromotive force radiation for the last decade and has been approached by a vast range of individuals, requesting to begin legal proceedings against the “silent killer” that exists in our country’s air, and United Nations agency have expressed their want to hitch them in such proceedings.
• While Section 91(1)(b) of the CPC has been invoked, it’s with all respect submitted that Section ninety one has been invoked solely regarding the “wrongful acts” of the defendants, the acts concerning the act of omission in not being aware of the health hazards of 5G before allowing any more activity therein field. The Supreme Court has settled the proposition that the ‘precautionary principle‟ stands embedded among the fold of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby conferring fundamental rights upon the plaintiffs even of Section 91 of CPC.
• Since the plaintiffs, themselves, have severally suffered special in addition to actual damages, it’s not the case of the plaintiffs that the suit cannot proceed if the permission beneath Order I Rule eight of the CPC is to be denied by this Court.
• In different words, the complainant may without doubt rock the conscience of this Court into being sympathetic to the explanation for the present as well as future generation against what’s undeniably a “silent killer”.

Respondent’s Submission

The respondent contended that no case for grant of leave to institute the suit is created out under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure or to sue in representative interest under Order I Rule eight of the Code of Civil Procedure or to keep up the suit while not the said leave/permission because the plaintiffs’ suit is flawed and not rectifiable for the subsequent reasons:

• Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall contain statements of fabric facts in an exceedingly pithy type however no proof by that they’re to be tried. However, the complainants haven’t complied with Order VI Rule read with the provision of Code of Civil Procedure as (i) The statements of the complainant don’t seem to be in pithy type and (ii) The plaintiff has incorporated the proof within the plaint.
• Order VI Rule nine of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the contents of any document shall not become into being within the plaint unless the precise words of the document or any half therefrom area unit material. However, the complainant has not complied with Order VI Rule nine of the Code of Civil Procedure in addition and has reproduced the documents within the plaint.
• The complainant has no personal information of any allegations created within the plaint. Thus, the full plaint is predicated on the data and legal recommendation received by the complainant, it seems that the plaintiffs wish Associate in Nursing inquiry to be conducted by this Court into the matter that isn’t permissible in law in these proceedings.
• According to Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963, someone entitled to any legal character will institute a suit against another one that denies or is interested to deny his right. within the scope of the case, the plaintiffs never approached the defendants claiming any right and so, the defendants didn’t have to be compelled to respond or deny the plaintiffs alleged rights. therein read of the matter, the maintainability of the declarative reliefs wanted by the plaintiffs is uncertain.

Judgment

The case is dismissed. The court expressed that The plaintiffs have abused and exploited the method of law that has resulted in an exceedingly waste of judicial time. The penalty of Rs.20 lakhs is obligatory on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s area unit was directed to deposit the price of Rs.20 lakhs with the metropolis State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) within one week. If the price isn’t deposited within one week, it shall recover an equivalent from the complainant beneath the law. It shall utilize this price for the victims of road accidents. Moreover, the justice mentioned that It seems that the complainant has filed this suit to gain publicity and that is evident from the very fact that the complainant circulated the video conferencing link of this Court on her social media accounts, which resulted in the recurrent disruption of the Court proceedings.

Rashid Zafar, a prisoner undergoing trial, was arrested in 2018 for allegedly being a member of the terrorist organization named Islamic State Of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He was alleged to be involved in planning serial blasts, suicide bombings, and political assassinations in Delhi and other areas around the country.

Zafar approached a Delhi Court on Wednesday, claiming that he was beaten by the other inmates inside the Tihar jail and was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. The inmate’s legal team claims to have a video in their possession, in which the alleged ISIS member is narrating the whole incident. In the video, he says that he was beaten badly by a few inmates and a sipahi and that they assaulted him because of his background. Advocate M S Khan, Zafar’s lawyer, also confirmed the existence of this video and moved before the court with a plea requesting the Jail Superintendent to look into the matter.

Tihar Jail’s administration countered these allegations and stated that he inflicted these injuries on himself. However, they further stated that they have recovered the phone from Zafar’s possession and have ordered an inquiry into the whole matter.

A petition filed by the inmate’s counsel alleged that Zafar was forced to chant religious slogans of another religion by the other inmates in the cell.
According to the plea, the incident was disclosed by the accused to his father on phone from the jail itself.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) is a licensure examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) in India. The test is one of the mandatory requirements for an Indian citizen who has a medical degree from a college outside India to practice medicine in the country.

An instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the Association of MD Physicians through its president Dr. Rajesh Rajan asking for the postponement of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, which is scheduled to be held in mid-June, on account of the dangerous pandemic prevailing in the country.

Kirtiman Singh, the counsel representing the National Board of Examination, stated that the examination is conducted twice a year by Indian authorities to confer a right of licensure on doctors who have a foreign degree and that the examination has been taking place all through the pandemic. He further contended that 18,600 candidates have already registered to take the examination in June and if the petitioners do not want to write the exam right now, they can take it in December as there is no cap on the number of attempts this exam. He informed the Court that the exam is going to be conducted in around 52 cities at around 98 centers all over India and that all necessary precautions are being taken in conducting the examination.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal listed the matter for further hearing on 11th June 2020 and meanwhile asked the petitioner and the respondents to place on record the relevant documents relied upon them during arguments.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Delhi High Court on 3rd June 2021 quashed the Writ of student which claims a clause of CBSE Examination bye-laws to be unconditional.

Petitioner’s Contention

A Petitioner who is a minor child files a writ petition through her father. Her petition states that there has been an error in the recording of her parent’s name and which one of the bye-laws of the CBSE Examination doesn’t allow so. She mentions that her parent’s names have been recorded incorrectly as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. In her birth certificate, their name has been recorded the as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav. It was stated in the petition if she is not been allowed to correct this error then it will lead to the violation of the fundamental right to education and she will also not be allowed for higher education. In the appeal, the constitutionality of the bye-law has been challenged by the petitioner.

Respondent’s Contention

Respondent is contented by the counsel that C.B.S.E. is an autonomous and independent body and so will not be compliant to the writ jurisdiction. As CBSE is an autonomous society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The counsel of Respondent has also mentioned that the C.B.S.E is not entitled with either the power or resources to verify the details of every candidate independently and they have to rely upon the records which are given to them by the schools. It should that there has been an error on behalf of the parents.

Judgment

In the judgment court, Justice Manmohan held that the parents of the petitioner consciously and consequently choose to fill in their names as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav and Mamta Yadav in the school records. And the petition cannot deal with the challenge of the constitutionality of the bye-laws as petitioners are the ones who are at fault as they have repeated this mistake on many occasions. It held that the change of names shouldn’t be permitted as they chose to fill those names on their wish and account. The court also stated that the grounds of challenging the constitutionality are increasing nowadays even though the Petitioner is a default themselves. So the court quashed the following Writ Petition by saying that the petitioner’s parents are at fault.

What were the issues in the above case?

• Whether the Writ can be issued against CBSE?
• Whether the current petition can challenge the constitutional validity?

When can constitutionality be challenged?

The constitutional validity of any Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz

• Lack of legislative competence
• Violation of any of the fundamental rights

Explain Article 226

• Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.