The Yearly Reports: The top ten Delhi High Court judgments of 2015

The past year has been an extremely eventful for the Delhi High Court, with Bar politics and high-profile cases providing a steady supply of news. While there were some judgments that sent out strong messages against the Executive, some verdicts were socially significant..As the year draws to a close, we look at ten judgments of the Delhi High Court that made the headlines..1. Priya Parameswaran Pillai v Union of India & Ors. (March 2015).Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai was travelling to the UK, with plans to address the British Parliament on initiatives on renewable energy sources in the tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh. Pillai was also planning to shed light over the human rights violations occurring in that region..She was prevented from boarding her flight by airport officials who informed her that a Look-out circular had been issued against her..Not one to back down, Pillai challenged this in the Delhi High Court which agreed with her right to travel abroad and passed an acerbic order, holding that while the State may not,.‘[A]ccept the views of civil right activists, but that by itself cannot be a good enough reason to do away with dissent.’.Counsels who appeared- Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh and Vrinda Grover for Pillai; ASG Sanjay Jain for the Government..Repercussions- The verdict that was heralded by many as ‘Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India-II’ did not sit well with the Center which proceeded to suspend the FCRA registration of Greenpeace India and eventually, cancel it. .2. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v Office of Attorney General of India (March 2015).RTI activist Subhash Agarwal scored yet another victory when a Single Bench of the HC laid down that office of the Attorney General of India was subject to the Right to Information Act..Vibhu Bhakru J. had also rejected the contention of the Govt when it argued ostensible infrastructural handicaps as a feasible reason for excluding the AG’s office from the scope of RTI Act..Counsels who appeared- Advocate Pranav Sachdeva for Agarwal; Advocate Jasmeet Singh (Standing Counsel for the Union) for the Government..Repercussions- The Center immediately challenged the verdict before a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini that stayed the Single Bench order while noting that the issue required ‘consideration’..Barring one hearing, where the Center attempted to draw out the difference between public authority and public office, the case has not seen much progress. It is now scheduled to be heard on February 9 next year..3. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors. (April 2015).Agarwal had a busy year in 2015. This time, the medical expenses of Supreme Court judges came under scrutiny when Agarwal challenged a Single Bench order of the Delhi High Court which had laid down that medical reimbursements were to be kept out of the purview of the Act because their disclosure did not serve any real public interest..The Bench, however was in no mood to entertain this appeal which was dismissed on the grounds that the RTI Act itself provided exemption from disclosure of certain information including the information which would cause “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual except where the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”.This finding followed the tenor of observations made by the Bench, even during the course of arguments when it had questioned the Petitioner as to what public purpose could be served by disclosing these details..Counsels who appeared- Prashant Bhushan for Agarwal; Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for the Supreme Court..Repercussions- Unfazed by the verdict, Agarwal moved the Supreme Court in this regard. But the Apex Court did not entertain the petition in spite of Bhushan’s impassioned arguments and dismissed it while holding that the information sought was ‘violative of the privacy of judges.’.4. Ambika Soni v Union of India & Ors and Kumari Selja Vs Union of India & Ors. (July 2015).After the (in)famous AAP-Union tussle, political squabbles reached the Delhi High Court once again..Congress politicians Ambika Soni & Kumari Selja challenged their eviction from Type VIII to Type VII bungalows. They argued that this was a ‘clear case of stifling the Opposition’ by the Union..The Bench was not inclined to agree and dismissed the petitions after imposing costs. Justice RS Endlaw did not mince words when he wrote in his judgment that the petitioners, merely for the sake of retaining a house to which they are not entitled, had attempted to give ‘political overtones’ to the issue..Counsels who appeared- Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi for Soni & Selja; ASG Sanjay Jain for the Union..Repercussions- The parties challenged the decision before a Division Bench and this time fielded Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal to communicate their readiness of moving into Type VII bungalows which was their entitlement..The Bench set aside the Single Bench verdict and also added that comments of the Single Bench while deciding on other concurrent issues, were ‘not necessary’..5. Annie Nagaraja v Union of India & Ors. [September 2015].Justice Kailash Gambhir ended his tenure at the Delhi High Court in style with a judgment that would ensure parity for women naval officers. On petitions filed by seventeen women naval officers, a Division Bench allowed women to be granted permanent commission in the Navy, ensuring that women officers in the Navy enjoyed rights similar to their counterparts in the Army and the Air Force..In an extensive judgment, Gambhir J. wrote that the march of time had proven that gender does not define ability and or calibre. He further noted that the Courts would.“Frown upon any endeavour which restrains the progress of women for equitable space.”.Counsels who appeared- Senior Advocate Rekha Palli for the Petitioners; ASG Sanjay Jain for the Union..Repercussions- The Center decided to challenge the verdict in Supreme Court which declined to stay the order of the Delhi High Court..(Read the complete judgment below).6. M/S BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi [October 2015].In 2014, Delhi Chief Minister had initiated a CAG audit to the power companies operating in Delhi, in a bit to substantiate his allegations that the discoms had shown inflated electricity bills..Responding to this, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd, BSES Yamuna Power and BSES Rajdhani Ltd had challenged the Delhi government’s decision on the grounds that private companies were beyond the jurisdiction of the CAG..The Court agreed with the discoms and the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini & Justice RS Endlaw also said that the audit conducted thus far as well as the CAG’s draft audit report would be “non-est”, i.e. have no bearing whatsoever..Counsels who appeared- Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Dhruv Mehta, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Sethi had appeared for the discoms; Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhawan, Paras Kuhad, Meet Malhotra and Dayan Krishnan for the Delhi Govt and the CAG..Repercussions- Although Kejriwal made it clear that the High Court’s decision was a setback for the Govt, he had tweeted that an appeal would be filed against the decision in the Supreme Court. However no such appeal has been filed yet..7. RK Jain & Ors Vs Union of India (November 2015).Prashant Bhushan took up the issue of a headless Central Information Commission to the Delhi High Court when he filed a petition alleging inaction from the Union in filling up the vacancies of Chief Information Commissioner and three Information Commissioners..Bhushan had further contended that this was ‘frustrating the very object of the RTI Act.’ Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had also appeared in the case as an intervenor. The Court had expressed its unhappiness over the delay and had wished to personally monitor the process of appointments..Chief Justice G Rohini in her judgment, granted the Govt six weeks to finalize the selection process and disposed of the petition..Counsels who appeared- Prashant Bhushan for Petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for RTI Activists/intervenors; ASG Sanjay Jain for the Union..8. F.Hoffman La Roche Ltd. & Anr. Vs CIPLA Ltd and CIPLA Ltd Vs. F.Hoffman La Roche Ltd. & Anr. (November, 2015).Two pharma giants battling it out over a drug patent in the new product patent regime that had been put to practice since 2005. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had earlier ruled in favor of Cipla when it said that the Indian company’s lung cancer drug Tarceva did not infringe Roche’s patent over the same. Roche had challenged this verdict and Cipla had also gone in appeal against the verdict of the Single Bench which had not invalidated Roche’s patent over the drug..With legal bigwigs engaged by both sides, the verdict did not disappoint. When a Division Bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta delivered a judgment in favor of Roche, it sent the IPR community in a tizzy with opinions on the judgment flying thick and fast from both sides..However, what made bigger news was when it was found out that parts of the judgment were verbatim reproductions of an academic article published in 2013. Justice Nandrajog admitted this error in a subsequent order passed by him in the same matter and deleted the paragraphs in question..Counsels who appeared- Pravin Anand for Roche; Senior Advocates Arvind Nigam, and Pratibha M Singh for Cipla..9. Rahul Gandhi Vs Subramanian Swamy & Ors. [Batch of five cases, December 2015].Rare are those days when Subramanian Swamy fails to dominate the headlines. And when he is spotted in the court corridors, you can be sure that an interesting matter is up for hearing..This time, the Gandhis battled him in the High Court over allegations of cheating and misappropriation of funds in acquiring the newspaper, ‘National Herald’ by Young Indian (YI)..On a complaint filed by Swamy, the trial court had summoned the leaders in June 2014 and all of them had sought quashing of summons before the Delhi HC in July 2014. In the month of December ’14, the High Court had stayed the summons and ordered for the case to be heard on a day-to-day basis..While the Gandhis argued fervently that a case for cheating was not made out and therefore the trial could not continue, the Single Bench of Justice Sunil Gaur thought otherwise and dismissed the petitions. The judgment that was delivered within two days after it was reserved, came down heavily on the Congress leaders when it noted that there existed ‘serious imputations smacking of criminality levelled against petitioners’..However, the parties got a minor reprieve from the trial court when Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared in Patiala Court and sought an adjournment for two weeks. With the matter now listed on December 19, all the parties have been directed to be personally present in Court on that day..Counsels who appeared- Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal & Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the Gandhis, Senior Advocate Harin Raval for Motilal Vora, Senior Advocate RS Cheema & Ramesh Gupta for Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda; Swamy argued his case in person..Repercussions- While there were concrete indications given by the Congress party that it will assail the verdict before the Apex Court, no appeal has been filed..10. Subramanian Swamy Vs Raju Through Juvenile Justice Board & Ors. (December 2015).Subramanian Swamy also appeared in a matter related to the December 16 Delhi gang rape, now known as the ‘Nirbhaya’ case. He filed a plea opposing the release of the juvenile convicted in the case on the ground that the juvenile was allegedly in close contact with a suspected militant in the juvenile home and therefore, his release could pose a danger to the society at large..The Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Jayant Nath J. eventually held that the juvenile had already spent the maximum amount of time that can be spent in the special home (three years)..However, the Court passed certain directions to facilitate the rehabilitation of the convict once he is released..Counsels who appeared- Swamy argued in person; ASG Sanjay Jain for the Union.(Read order below)