The week that was: The Delhi High Court

Here is a look at some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court this week..February 8, 2016.Jaitley Vs Kejriwal- AAP Spokesperson fails to get relief.The week began with a case that has been dominating headlines for the past two months: the much publicized spat between AAP Supremo & Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley over Jaitley’s alleged role in rampant malpractices prevailing in DDCA..Jaitley had filed a civil suit in the High Court against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders over their defamatory comments against him. On Monday, an application filed by AAP spokesperson Deepak Bajpai (Defendant No. 6), seeking rejection of the suit was heard by Justice Vipin Sanghi..Bajpai, through senior counsel HS Phoolka, had contended that Jaitley had not made any specific averments against him in the suit and thus, he should be removed as a defendant..Senior Advocate Rajeev Nayyar, who appeared for Jaitley along with senior counsel Pratibha Singh, argued that the plaint had specifically mentioned that the defamatory statements were made both individually and collectively as part of a conspiracy..The court eventually dismissed Bajpai’s application..February 9, 2016.RTI for Attorney General? .Last year, the Delhi High Court had held that the AG’s office would be covered under the Right to Information Act. While the judgment was seen as a step towards greater transparency in the legal system, the Union appealed and obtained a stay. .While the Union has previously tried to differentiate between a ‘public office’ and ‘public authority’, this time ASG Sanjay Jain argued that although the AG’s office was a Constitutional office, it was not performing a public function..You can read more about the case here. .‘No CBI probe for DDCA’- Justice Manmohan.The controversy surrounding DDCA’s management reached the High Court once again with Kirti Azad and Bhishan Singh Bedi’s petition for a court-monitored CBI probe into alleged financial irregularities. Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani appeared for the petitioners, ASG Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the CBI, and ASG Sanjay Jain for the Union..The Bench dismissed the petition and called it ‘premature’. You can read more about the case here. .February 10, 2016.CBI gets a reprieve from the High Court.The premier investigative agency and the Delhi Government locked horns in court with respect to the raid on Delhi’s Principal Secretary Rajendra Kumar. A Special Court allowed AAP’s application for the release of certain documents seized during the raid. The Special Court had also passed some strict comments on how the raid had been carried out..The CBI challenged this verdict, represented by ASG Tushar Mehta, stating that the documents were relevant to the ongoing investigation, and should be released immediately. Senior counsel Dayan Krishnan appeared for the Delhi government..Justice PS Teji set aside the order passed by the Special Court and held that the Court had ‘exceeded its jurisdiction’ and also failed to ‘exercise its jurisdiction.’.You can read about the verdict here. .Management quota in city’s nursery schools.A Single Bench had set aside the decision of the Government to scrap management quota in nursery admissions. The government decided to assail the verdict before a Division Bench, with Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appearing in the matter. The Division Bench reserved its verdict over the issue..February 11, 2016.RK Pachauri .The controversy surrounding the former IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri took a new spin recently. Former TERI researcher Rahul Singh told the police that he was ‘coaxed’ by senior TERI officials to approach the victim with an offer to ‘settle’ the issue outside Court. This development was revealed in a status report filed by the Delhi Police before the Bench..The victim’s advocate, Prashant Mendiratta argued that the Investigating Officer had failed to inform the Court about Singh’s complaint and the victim came to know about this development only through media reports..Singh’s complaint, Mendiratta further submitted, was a reasonable premise to conclude that Pachauri was at the helm of affairs at TERI and was likely to influence witnesses..After the Delhi Police submitted that it will file a charge-sheet in the case within two weeks, the Bench reserved its verdict over the case. Pachauri was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta..You can read about it here. .February 12, 2016.Odd-Even Scheme (II) challenged again.Barely had the AAP Government announced a second phase of the Odd-Even Scheme that will be implemented from April, a PIL was filed challenging the flagship program of the Government..The petition, which termed the Scheme as ‘misdirected’, also stated that the rise in vehicle generated air pollution was due to non-implementation and non-enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which contains ample provisions for penalizing anyone driving a polluting vehicle..Since the petition had impleaded the Central Government along with the Delhi Government, the Bench has sought a response from both parties and adjourned the case to March 30.