Here are the some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court in the past week..Monday, May 9.Allowing married women in JAG: Delhi HC seeks Centre’s response.The High Court was seized of an interesting issue at the beginning of the week when a petition sought directions to the government to recruit married women law graduates into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department of the Indian Army..The petition stated that currently the Indian Army only recruited unmarried female law graduates for the JAG department, and this policy was impinging upon the rights of married women to serve in JAG department..When the case came up for hearing, the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath told the Union Government to file their reponse over an issue that needed consideration. The case will now be heard on August 10..DJS 2015 scores to be re-evaluated.Scores of students who wrote the contentious Delhi Judicial Services Examination in December last year were in for some relief when the High Court ruled that there will be a re-calculation of scores of the DJS exams of 2015, after it was revealed that four questions in the exam had more than one correct answer as an option..The order came in the background of petitions moved against the exams. While one plea filed by Manish Gupta challenged the answer key on grounds of it being ‘ambiguous’, the other petition filed by Sumit Kumar said that there were ‘fundamental errors’ in some of the questions posed in the preliminary exam paper, held in December 2015..Tuesday, May 10.JNU students knock High Court doors.The fresh twist in the JNU saga has been the rustication of some students for their involvement in the February 9 episode on campus that incited clashes in the Capital. With penalties being imposed on students as well, these disputes reached the High Court when Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya challenged their rustication orders and sought for a stay on operation of these orders..While the Petitioners argued that no proper hearing or show-cause notices were served on them before the Panel found them guilty; JNU’s lawyer told the Court that notices were duly served on both students who ‘refused to show up’, in-spite of being in the campus premises that day. Although the Single Bench of Justice Manmohan did not grant a stay on the orders, the Court did issue notice to the University and sought its response..Wednesday, May 11.Judge’s ‘distress call’ leads to a Public Interest Litigation.The Delhi Police found itself in a pickle this week when Justice Vipin Sanghi of the High Court decided to point out fallacies in the manner of functioning of ‘Dial 100’ helpline service..Justice Sanghi addressed a strongly worded letter to the Delhi Police Commissioner and also shared it with Chief Justice G Rohini, highlighting the poor response time of calls made to the helpline service. The Chief took immediate cognizance of the issue, converted it into a PIL and issued notice to the Central Government as well as Delhi Police..Their replies will have to be filed before the next date of hearing on July 18..Thursday, May 12.Monsanto’s fresh challenge to Government’s policy on BT Cotton.Monsanto Mahyco entered into another round of litigation with the Central Government when this time the company challenged the fresh notification of the Government that was issued on March 8 and sought to reduce the maximum sale price of BT cotton seeds..The Bench issued notice to the Centre on this issue and directed them to file their replies before August 31 which is when the case will be heard next..Earlier, Monsanto had also challenged the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture to bring genetically modified (BT) cotton seeds under price control..Friday, May 13.Collegium’s recent recommendations under the scanner.An action packed Friday ensured that the week ended on a high. Two petitions assailed the recent recommendations made by the collegium for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..The two petitions filed by lawyers Matthews J Nedumpara and RP Luthra had raised similar grounds, and were heard by the Single Bench of Justice Manmohan. Luthra’s petition was earlier listed on May 11, during which time Justice Manmohan had refused an interim stay of the collegium recommendations till the next date of hearing..Friday was no different, for the fate of these pleas stood sealed when the Bench refused to interfere and dismissed them after hearing extensive arguments made by both the lawyers, who argued in person..JNU students granted a breather.Apart from Umar Khalid & Anirban Bhattacharya, JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar too approached the High Court for relief against the same orders of rustication and imposition of fines by the University..Justice Manmohan took a different path for this case. Instead of issuing notice and seeking the University’s response simplicitor, he took on record an undertaking by the lawyers for the Petitioner-students that they will not foster any more strikes or agitations and will withdraw the dharnas and demonstrations..Subsequently, he said that the students were under liberty to approach the appellate authority (JNU’s the Vice Chancellor) and make their representations. The Bench added that till the appeals of the students were not heard and adjudicated upon, all orders of rustication, fines, hostel bans will be stayed.
Here are the some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court in the past week..Monday, May 9.Allowing married women in JAG: Delhi HC seeks Centre’s response.The High Court was seized of an interesting issue at the beginning of the week when a petition sought directions to the government to recruit married women law graduates into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department of the Indian Army..The petition stated that currently the Indian Army only recruited unmarried female law graduates for the JAG department, and this policy was impinging upon the rights of married women to serve in JAG department..When the case came up for hearing, the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath told the Union Government to file their reponse over an issue that needed consideration. The case will now be heard on August 10..DJS 2015 scores to be re-evaluated.Scores of students who wrote the contentious Delhi Judicial Services Examination in December last year were in for some relief when the High Court ruled that there will be a re-calculation of scores of the DJS exams of 2015, after it was revealed that four questions in the exam had more than one correct answer as an option..The order came in the background of petitions moved against the exams. While one plea filed by Manish Gupta challenged the answer key on grounds of it being ‘ambiguous’, the other petition filed by Sumit Kumar said that there were ‘fundamental errors’ in some of the questions posed in the preliminary exam paper, held in December 2015..Tuesday, May 10.JNU students knock High Court doors.The fresh twist in the JNU saga has been the rustication of some students for their involvement in the February 9 episode on campus that incited clashes in the Capital. With penalties being imposed on students as well, these disputes reached the High Court when Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya challenged their rustication orders and sought for a stay on operation of these orders..While the Petitioners argued that no proper hearing or show-cause notices were served on them before the Panel found them guilty; JNU’s lawyer told the Court that notices were duly served on both students who ‘refused to show up’, in-spite of being in the campus premises that day. Although the Single Bench of Justice Manmohan did not grant a stay on the orders, the Court did issue notice to the University and sought its response..Wednesday, May 11.Judge’s ‘distress call’ leads to a Public Interest Litigation.The Delhi Police found itself in a pickle this week when Justice Vipin Sanghi of the High Court decided to point out fallacies in the manner of functioning of ‘Dial 100’ helpline service..Justice Sanghi addressed a strongly worded letter to the Delhi Police Commissioner and also shared it with Chief Justice G Rohini, highlighting the poor response time of calls made to the helpline service. The Chief took immediate cognizance of the issue, converted it into a PIL and issued notice to the Central Government as well as Delhi Police..Their replies will have to be filed before the next date of hearing on July 18..Thursday, May 12.Monsanto’s fresh challenge to Government’s policy on BT Cotton.Monsanto Mahyco entered into another round of litigation with the Central Government when this time the company challenged the fresh notification of the Government that was issued on March 8 and sought to reduce the maximum sale price of BT cotton seeds..The Bench issued notice to the Centre on this issue and directed them to file their replies before August 31 which is when the case will be heard next..Earlier, Monsanto had also challenged the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture to bring genetically modified (BT) cotton seeds under price control..Friday, May 13.Collegium’s recent recommendations under the scanner.An action packed Friday ensured that the week ended on a high. Two petitions assailed the recent recommendations made by the collegium for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..The two petitions filed by lawyers Matthews J Nedumpara and RP Luthra had raised similar grounds, and were heard by the Single Bench of Justice Manmohan. Luthra’s petition was earlier listed on May 11, during which time Justice Manmohan had refused an interim stay of the collegium recommendations till the next date of hearing..Friday was no different, for the fate of these pleas stood sealed when the Bench refused to interfere and dismissed them after hearing extensive arguments made by both the lawyers, who argued in person..JNU students granted a breather.Apart from Umar Khalid & Anirban Bhattacharya, JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar too approached the High Court for relief against the same orders of rustication and imposition of fines by the University..Justice Manmohan took a different path for this case. Instead of issuing notice and seeking the University’s response simplicitor, he took on record an undertaking by the lawyers for the Petitioner-students that they will not foster any more strikes or agitations and will withdraw the dharnas and demonstrations..Subsequently, he said that the students were under liberty to approach the appellate authority (JNU’s the Vice Chancellor) and make their representations. The Bench added that till the appeals of the students were not heard and adjudicated upon, all orders of rustication, fines, hostel bans will be stayed.