Here are the some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court in the past week..Monday, April 25.Odd-Even Challenge- Lawyers seek exemption under Phase II.DHCBA President Rajiv Khosla had challenged the 2nd phase of Odd-Even Scheme’s applicability to lawyers with the Bench seeking a reply from the Government. This week, after hearing Khosla’s detailed submissions the Bench asked the Delhi Government whether it would consider the idea of exempting lawyers from the Scheme for the remaining two days..When the case was taken up on Tuesday, the Delhi government informed the Court that since the Scheme was coming to an end within two days, any exemption in this phase would not be possible. However, the Government will keep in mind the legitimate concerns voiced in Khosla’s petition, and will consider granting exemption to lawyers..Tuesday, April 26.Virbhadra Singh’s disproportionate assets case fallout.Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath had, for the past two weeks, heard a petition filed by the children of Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh seeking quashing of a provisional order of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to attach assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)..This week the Bench said that while all subsequent proceedings to the ED order against Singh’s children would remain stayed, the previously attached properties of Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh will not be freed..The Petitioners had also challenged the recently amended second proviso of section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming it should be declared unconstitutional as it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution. While discussing the constitutional aspect of this provision, the Bench agreed in its order that the issue required further deliberation..Wednesday, April 27.DJS- Round II: High Court admits ambiguities in answer key.The Delhi Judicial Service examination of 2015 had earlier come under a cloud when a petition was filed demanding a revised answer key to be issued by the High Court after certain discrepancies were highlighted in the plea..This week, similar petitions were filed in the High Court that picked up on similar issues pertaining to the ‘ambiguous’ answers released by the HC administration. While one such case was dismissed, in the main petition filed by Manish Gupta, the High Court’s counsel submitted that the contentious questions in Gupta’s petition will be appropriately corrected and a revised answer key will be issued..After recording this statement, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Najmi Waziri reserved orders..BJP Leader’s plea against social networking sites .KN Govindacharya, a former BJP leader had filed a petition stating that government’s contracts with social networking sites led to transfer of intellectual property rights, and were not in compliance with the law..While the Court had previously pulled up the Central Government for its lax response in the matter, this time when the case was heard Google submitted that it had not made any money by hosting content on YouTube under the contract between the Government of India and Google or any of its units. The submission, wmade by Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, saw the case being put to rest before Justices BD Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva..Thursday, April 28.Private schools versus DDA.After Ryan International School, a private and unaided minority institution, knocked the doors of the High Court alleging an unconstitutional mandate set up by the Delhi Government, the discourse in the case veered towards minority institutions and the State..Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against a circular issued by the Delhi Government which mandates that all private schools which have received land from the Delhi Development Authority, will obtain the permission of the State Government before hiking their fees..It was the school’s claim that any provisions which insist on prior permission of the Department of Education do not apply to ‘unaided minority schools’..Justice Manmohan has posted the case before the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini which is hearing petitions on the similar issue..Friday, April 29.Jaitley-Kejriwal defamation saga- End to nowhere?.The much publicized spat between Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Union Minister Arun Jaitley that turned into a legal battle, reached the High Court this week. However, yet another procedural roadblock ensured that the case will not be reaching fruition any time soon..The issue this time was on certain interim applications contesting the admissibility of averments made by Jaitley in a replication filed by him against written statements furnished by the defendants earlier in court. The main contention of the defendants was that the replication filed by Jaitley contained new facts, which were not part of the initial plaint..After a hearing that spanned nearly two hours, Justice Vipin Sanghi has now directed the defendants to limit their reply to the contentious averments alone and file it before July 11 when the case is heard next. Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the defendants while Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi, Rajiv Nayar and Pratibha M Singh appeared for Jaitley.
Here are the some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court in the past week..Monday, April 25.Odd-Even Challenge- Lawyers seek exemption under Phase II.DHCBA President Rajiv Khosla had challenged the 2nd phase of Odd-Even Scheme’s applicability to lawyers with the Bench seeking a reply from the Government. This week, after hearing Khosla’s detailed submissions the Bench asked the Delhi Government whether it would consider the idea of exempting lawyers from the Scheme for the remaining two days..When the case was taken up on Tuesday, the Delhi government informed the Court that since the Scheme was coming to an end within two days, any exemption in this phase would not be possible. However, the Government will keep in mind the legitimate concerns voiced in Khosla’s petition, and will consider granting exemption to lawyers..Tuesday, April 26.Virbhadra Singh’s disproportionate assets case fallout.Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath had, for the past two weeks, heard a petition filed by the children of Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh seeking quashing of a provisional order of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to attach assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)..This week the Bench said that while all subsequent proceedings to the ED order against Singh’s children would remain stayed, the previously attached properties of Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh will not be freed..The Petitioners had also challenged the recently amended second proviso of section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming it should be declared unconstitutional as it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution. While discussing the constitutional aspect of this provision, the Bench agreed in its order that the issue required further deliberation..Wednesday, April 27.DJS- Round II: High Court admits ambiguities in answer key.The Delhi Judicial Service examination of 2015 had earlier come under a cloud when a petition was filed demanding a revised answer key to be issued by the High Court after certain discrepancies were highlighted in the plea..This week, similar petitions were filed in the High Court that picked up on similar issues pertaining to the ‘ambiguous’ answers released by the HC administration. While one such case was dismissed, in the main petition filed by Manish Gupta, the High Court’s counsel submitted that the contentious questions in Gupta’s petition will be appropriately corrected and a revised answer key will be issued..After recording this statement, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Najmi Waziri reserved orders..BJP Leader’s plea against social networking sites .KN Govindacharya, a former BJP leader had filed a petition stating that government’s contracts with social networking sites led to transfer of intellectual property rights, and were not in compliance with the law..While the Court had previously pulled up the Central Government for its lax response in the matter, this time when the case was heard Google submitted that it had not made any money by hosting content on YouTube under the contract between the Government of India and Google or any of its units. The submission, wmade by Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, saw the case being put to rest before Justices BD Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva..Thursday, April 28.Private schools versus DDA.After Ryan International School, a private and unaided minority institution, knocked the doors of the High Court alleging an unconstitutional mandate set up by the Delhi Government, the discourse in the case veered towards minority institutions and the State..Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against a circular issued by the Delhi Government which mandates that all private schools which have received land from the Delhi Development Authority, will obtain the permission of the State Government before hiking their fees..It was the school’s claim that any provisions which insist on prior permission of the Department of Education do not apply to ‘unaided minority schools’..Justice Manmohan has posted the case before the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini which is hearing petitions on the similar issue..Friday, April 29.Jaitley-Kejriwal defamation saga- End to nowhere?.The much publicized spat between Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Union Minister Arun Jaitley that turned into a legal battle, reached the High Court this week. However, yet another procedural roadblock ensured that the case will not be reaching fruition any time soon..The issue this time was on certain interim applications contesting the admissibility of averments made by Jaitley in a replication filed by him against written statements furnished by the defendants earlier in court. The main contention of the defendants was that the replication filed by Jaitley contained new facts, which were not part of the initial plaint..After a hearing that spanned nearly two hours, Justice Vipin Sanghi has now directed the defendants to limit their reply to the contentious averments alone and file it before July 11 when the case is heard next. Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the defendants while Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi, Rajiv Nayar and Pratibha M Singh appeared for Jaitley.