Hearing a PIL objecting to the use of the ‘Shoorveer’ song, composed as a tribute to Maharana Pratap, over gangster scenes in Mirzapur: The Movie, the Delhi High Court asked the CBFC to decide within a week on the producer’s own proposal to replace the song with background music. The Court declined to rule on the merits, observing the issue was for the competent authority, but remarked prima facie that the usage was not in good taste.
The Delhi High Court observed that former IPS officer Kiran Bedi’s administrative experience could assist it in the case arising from the Satya Niketan PG building collapse that killed seven, as it heard her application to be impleaded. The Centre, appearing also for the Delhi Government and MCD, opposed the plea, saying she was prejudging the issue. The Court asked for a reply within three days and listed the matter for September 25.
After a Delhi High Court order to release an undertrial on parole went unimplemented, and a later order imposing conditions was defied on the ground that it had not come ‘directly from the court’, the High Court drew contempt proceedings against the Tihar Jail Superintendent. It held that keeping a man behind bars despite a constitutional court’s release order, on a condition the court never imposed, violated his rights under Articles 14 and 21.
“How can there be a blanket ban?” the Delhi High Court asked the police, questioning the denial of permission for a protest at Jantar Mantar and suggesting that conditions or an alternative venue, rather than an outright refusal, were the lawful course. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has questioned the Delhi Police over its […]
Arguing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai told the Delhi High Court that mere use of offensive language does not attract the SC/ST Act, that the insult must be intentional and tied to caste identity, and that the Section 18 bar does not apply where the ingredients are not prima facie made out, relying on the Supreme Court’s Shajan Skaria decision. The prosecution and complainant contested that reading. The order is reserved.
Reserving its order on Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, the Delhi High Court declined interim protection at this stage and issued notice, framing the question as whether the two portions of his remarks by themselves attract the Act. The hearing saw a sharp exchange after the Court told his counsel not to circulate the allegedly offensive material in open court. Nothing has been decided.
In a fresh Section 9 arbitration petition, BharatPe’s parent Resilient Innovations has asked the Delhi High Court to restrain any transfer of or encumbrance over the warrants of Unity Small Finance Bank without its written consent, alleging a breach of the shareholders’ agreement. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice and listed the matter for October 1. No interim order has been passed yet.
Hearing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court observed that a person who calls himself a YouTube commentator must understand the platform, the context and the impact of what he says, that he cannot name a person in a manner crossing legal limits, and that where a statute like the SC/ST Act creates special protections one must be especially circumspect. The observations were made orally and are not a ruling.
Seeking anticipatory bail in an SC/ST Act case over remarks made in a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Ajeet Bharti told the Delhi High Court that he is a YouTube commentator who has consistently spoken against caste discrimination, and that the remarks complained of were made in a moment of provocation after an offensive post about his married sister, without any intention to insult any caste. The Court will view the video in chambers.
In an affidavit before the Delhi High Court, the Centre has said a competent adult should be allowed to nominate a partner, including a partner in a queer relationship, to take healthcare decisions in the event of incapacity, and that the relief sought can be accommodated within the existing legal and ethical framework. The petition seeks recognition of a non-heterosexual partner as a medical representative.