High Court Judgements On Service Matters & Other Subjects

More:  Supreme Court Judgements * Court Judgements on Service Matters * Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders *  Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

 

High Court Judgements – Category-Wise

1. RTI
2. Service Matters
3. General

1. RTI

A. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SECTION-WISE)
B. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SUBJECT-WISE)

A. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SECTION-WISE)

Sections 2(f)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 4,149 hits)

Sections 2(i)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 4,149 hits)

Section 3

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 4,149 hits)

Section 6(1)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 4,149 hits)

Section 7
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 3,667 hits)

Section 7(9)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 - The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 18,655 hits)

Section 8
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 6,895 hits)

Section 8(1)(e)
Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 10,827 hits)

———————–

Section 8(1)(j)
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr.  – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx                   xxx                   xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 4,623 hits)

— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 3,667 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 9,743 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 9,206 hits)

Section 11(1)
Delhi HC: ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 10,827 hits)

Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties]

  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 - M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (225.1 KiB, 1,981 hits)

——————————
No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 3,622 hits)

Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties 

  Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 - RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary (70.9 KiB, 1,830 hits)

——————-

HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] 

  Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 - The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (232.1 KiB, 1,957 hits)

——————
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. 

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 1,965 hits)

Sections 18 & 19

Delhi HC: “A mere reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly shows that the CIC cannot give directions to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Further, passing such an order would be beyond the scope of powers and functions of the CIC as stated under the RTI Act, 2005.”[Sections 18,19 & 20; Giving judgments on organisation’s policy not envisaged]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 - Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar (463.3 KiB, 4,526 hits)

Section 19(3)
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 6,895 hits)

Section 20

Delhi High Court has held as under:-
“… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (375.0 KiB, 8,121 hits)

Delhi High Court: “8. The response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 24.01.2017 - B.B. Dash Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (572.5 KiB, 3,870 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 9,122 hits)

 Section 22

Madras HC: “… … the other procedures or regulations formulated by any other institutions, cannot prevail over the Act of Parliament and those Rules and Regulations of such individual institutions can never override the purpose and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” xxx xxx “Thus, the second respondent is entitled to receive the answer scripts as sought for in his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All such similar applications are also to be disposed of by the writ petitioner-Law University, as expeditiously as possible.” [Section 22; Answer Scripts/Sheets]

  Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 - The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai (234.3 KiB, 4,602 hits)

Section 24(1)
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 6,895 hits)

B. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SUBJECT-WISE)

ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer * Attendance Record * Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information * Electronic Voting Machine * Larger Public Interest

ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer
— Delhi High Court: “15. In the opinion of this Court, the information sought in the present petition would not be liable to be disclosed, owing to the nature of the information i.e., relating to senior personnel in the Navy. The CIC’s order does not warrant any interference.” – 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 11.01.2023 - Jagjit Singh Pal Singh Virk Vs. Union of India & Anr. (710.4 KiB, 1,538 hits)

Attendance Record
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 3,667 hits)

Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information 
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx                   xxx                   xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 4,623 hits)

Electronic Voting Machine
Electronic voting machine is not information

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 4,149 hits)

Larger Public Interest
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 3,667 hits)

2. SERVICE MATTERS

Adultery * Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act * Double Jeopardy * Habitual Indebtedness * Medical Claim for Treatment in Non-Empanelled Hospital * Pension * Reservation * Sexual Harassment * Suspension * Voluntary Retirement

Adultery
Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried.

  Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 - Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (248.8 KiB, 1,450 hits)

Compulsory Retirement — “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 4,446 hits)

 Delay in conducting departmental inquiry

— Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 - D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. (754.0 KiB, 1,314 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 5,686 hits)

Double Jeopardy
– In case of exoneration in disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings not to continue

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.08.2023 - Captain Arvind Kathpalia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (reg. double jeopardy) (460.9 KiB, 385 hits)

Gratuity
— An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” –

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 - National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors. (309.1 KiB, 1,165 hits)

— Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 - J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. (583.4 KiB, 5,551 hits)

— The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 04.10.2018 - Vijay Krishan Vs. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. (450.2 KiB, 290 hits)

  ECHS Circular dated 26.09.2018 - ELIGIBILITY OF PERMANTLY DISABLED UNMARRIED SON OF A ECHS BENEFICIARY TO AVAIL ECHS FACILITY (734.0 KiB, 1,158 hits)

Habitual Indebtedness 

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 1,014 hits)

Medical Claim for Treatment in Non-Empanelled Hospital

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 06.09.2023 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Gaur (reg. medical claim for treatment at a non-empanelled hospital) (1.1 MiB, 486 hits)

Pension  

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 4,450 hits)

 Reservation 

— PWDs 

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 10,223 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 949 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 - All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others (593.4 KiB, 2,455 hits)

Sexual Harassment

Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved

  Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 - P Vs. A & Ors. (160.6 KiB, 4,268 hits)

— Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.”

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 - Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. (1.5 MiB, 1,753 hits)

— Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 4,399 hits)

Suspension
Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order

Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
xxx                               xxx
14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 - Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors. (297.5 KiB, 1,130 hits)

Voluntary Retirement
Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 - Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors. (648.8 KiB, 9,604 hits)

3. GENERAL

Prevention of Atrocities Act
Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 - Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. (434.8 KiB, 951 hits)

Zero FIR

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 29.11.2019 - Sudesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State (Zero FIR) (190.0 KiB, 690 hits)

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.