The Delhi High Court saw a busy week, including a significant hearing on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea for a judge's recusal in an excise policy case. The court also upheld the convictions of a lawyer and a police officer for framing an innocent man in a fabricated rape case, enhancing compensation to the victim's family to ₹3 lakh. Several other crucial judgments and observations were made on various issues.
Kejriwal Seeks Judge Recusal, Next Hearing April 13
On Monday, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding Arvind Kejriwal's application. Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party national convener, requested Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse herself from hearing the CBI's revision plea in the excise policy case. Kejriwal personally appeared in court, stating he would argue his recusal application himself.[indiatvnews+1]
The former Delhi Chief Minister filed this fresh application after previously challenging the transfer of the CBI's petition from Justice Sharma, a request declined by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya. Kejriwal and former AAP leader Manish Sisodia had earlier argued there was a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing before Justice Sharma would not be impartial. The court has scheduled the next hearing for this matter on April 13.[indianexpress+2]
Lawyer, Police Officer Convicted in False Rape Case
In a significant ruling on April 4, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Haji Mohd. Altaf, a lawyer, and Narender Singh, a Sub-Inspector of Police. They conspired to falsely implicate a man in a rape case in 2000 with the motive of extorting money. The court dismissed their appeals, noting that a stronger punishment might have been warranted.[lawstreet+2]
The court enhanced the compensation payable to the victim's family, directing that the entire fine amount of ₹3 lakh be paid to his legal representatives. The conspiracy involved a woman who was persuaded to pose as a rape victim, leading to the innocent man's arrest. A DNA report later proved the allegations false, leading to the conspirators' charges. The court remarked that the victim was not only falsely implicated but also subjected to custodial harassment and indignity.[lawstreet+3]
COVID-19 Compensation and POCSO Act Clarification
The Delhi High Court recently set aside a Delhi Government decision to deny ₹1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the family of a government school Vice Principal. The Vice Principal succumbed to COVID-19 during the second wave of the pandemic. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the plea filed by the widow of the late Dr. Raja Ram Singh. The court directed authorities to release the compensation under the Delhi Government's COVID relief scheme within six weeks.[livelaw+4]
In another important judgment on April 4, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified a crucial aspect of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court held that the identification or physical presence of a child victim is not a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 15(2) of the Act. This ruling came as the court set aside a Sessions Court order that had discharged two individuals accused of storing and transmitting pornographic material involving children. The High Court stated that courts must apply a "test of subjective satisfaction" to determine if material appears to depict a child.[livelaw+6]
Hardeep Puri's Daughter Case and Lokpal Probe Quashed
The court also addressed an appeal by an activist against an order to remove social media content. The content linked Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri's daughter, Himayani Puri, to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday, a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar rejected the activist's appeal. The court directed the single judge who issued the original order to decide whether to continue or vacate the interim order by April 23. Himayani Puri had sought an unconditional apology and retraction, stating she is an accomplished finance professional targeted solely due to her father's position.[m+3]
In a separate development, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar quashed a Lokpal's directive. The Lokpal had ordered a CBI investigation against a senior Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officer. The court ruled on April 6 that the Lokpal's decision was passed without supporting material or proper reasoning. The court emphasized that the power to order an investigation does not allow authorities to act arbitrarily or without evidence. The CBI had previously found no evidence against the officer during a preliminary inquiry, a finding supported by the Directorate General of Vigilance.[m+4]
CM's Press Conference Promises Not Enforceable
In another significant observation, the Delhi High Court recently held that promises made by a Chief Minister during a press conference are not legally enforceable. The court stated such promises require formal policy or statutory backing to create a legal liability. This ruling overturned a single judge's directive that made former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's 2020 promises for rent relief to poor tenants legally enforceable. The division bench, comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, said the prayer to treat the statement as an assurance was "misconceived".[livelaw+2]
The Delhi High Court continues to handle a wide range of cases, delivering crucial judgments and hearing ongoing matters that impact various aspects of public life and governance.[livelaw]
