New Delhi [India], June 3 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre through the Ministry of Power to examine the rival claims and consider the validity of the right of the States of Haryana as well as Delhi for continued allocation of power from Dadri-II power plant.

New Delhi Mar 21 PTI The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Centre to file a status report regarding COVID-19 vaccination for children below the age of 12 years A bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said the status report be filed within 3 weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on May 12 The court was hearing a PIL on behalf of a minor a 12-year-old girl and another seeking directions for the immediate vaccination of those in the 12-17 age group on the grounds that there were fears that the third wave of COVID-19 could affect them more An application was also filed on behalf of the petitioners urging the court to direct the central government to give a road map for vaccinating children of of 12 years and below for COVID-19 The court noted that the grievance of the petitioners stands partially addressed as recently the centre has started to roll out vaccines for kids above 12 years Central government standing counsel Anurag Ahluwalia submitted that he will file the status report regarding vaccination for children below 12 years of age During the hearing the court observed that a call has to be taken by the experts whether a particular vaccine is safe or not It said so far as Indian situation is concerned it is the Niti Ayog which is taking decisions regarding the vaccination Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev appearing for the petitioners submitted that more than 50 percent of children are not able to go to schools as they are yet to be vaccinated which is a serious issue He said be it kids of age group 12 to 15 or 15 to 18 all are entitled to go to school and the government must come out with a policy on this at the earliest The petitioners had earlier submitted that no road map has been given by the government for vaccinating children in the age of 12 years and below The high court had earlier said it would be a disaster if COVID-19 vaccines are administered especially to children without clinical trials and had asked the Centre to quickly vaccinate kids of below 18 years of age once the trials are over as the whole nation is waiting for it The court was earlier informed by the Centre that clinical trials for the vaccines for children under 18 years of age are going on and on the verge of completion and that a policy will be formed by the government and children will be vaccinated when experts give permission The Centre in the affidavit had said vaccination was the top most priority of the government and all efforts were being made to achieve an objective of 100 per cent vaccination in the shortest time possible keeping the available resources in mind and availability of vaccine doses into consideration It had said from May 1 2021 onwards under the new liberalised pricing and accelerated national COVID vaccination strategy all citizens above the age of 18 years including parents of children who were residing in Delhi were already eligible for the vaccination The Centre had said that on May 12 last year Drug Controller General of India has permitted Bharat Biotech to conduct clinical trials on the healthy volunteers between 2 to 18 years of age for its vaccineCovaxin The petitioners counsel had said vaccines were being administered to children of the age group of 8 to 18 years in various countries and the court may ask the authorities to conclude the process in a time bound manner There are two petitioners in the matter -- the first is a minor represented through her mother and the second is a mother of a minor child The petition has claimed that according to the data of number of persons infected from April to May 2021 the number of reported cases where children were infected has risen tremendously than in 2020 It has alleged that the vaccine policy of India has failed to factor in children or parents of children for vaccination and the Centre and Delhi government have also failed to prepare a national plan for taking of the minors during the present pandemic That globally countries have fully recognised the importance of vaccinating children alongside adults to curb mitigate the ill effects of the present pandemic and have accordingly and effectively taken measures Vaccines for children are being produced and administered in countries such as Canada United States of America USA for children between the ages of 12-17 years it has said PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Jan 28 PTI The Delhi High Court Friday asked the Centre to inform whether it wishes to withdraw its 2017 affidavit in which it had submitted that marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon which may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing husbandsA bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar which has been conducting marathon hearings on a batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape asked Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to take instructions on this aspect and listed the matter for January 31The courts direction came after advocate Karuna Nundy representing petitioner NGOs RIT Foundation and All India Democratic Womens Association sought a clarification as to whether she shall address on the written submissions and affidavits filed by the central government so far or they are withdrawing itTo this Justice Shakdher said Mr Sharma take instructions on that as well What do you want Monday This assumes significance as the Centre in its affidavit filed in August 2017 had said the Supreme Court and various High Courts have already observed the rising misuse of Section 498A harassment caused to a married woman by her husband and in-laws of Indian Penal Code IPCIt had further said that marital rape has not been defined in an statue or law and while the offence of rape is defined under section 375 IPC defining marital rape would call for a broad based consensus of the societyHowever in January Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the high court that it was considering a constructive approach to the issue and has sought suggestions from several stakeholders and authorities on comprehensive amendments to the criminal law He had said criminalisation of marital rape involves family issues as well as the dignity of a woman and cannot be looked at from a microscopic angle and sought some time to respond with the governments standThe bench on January 24 granted 10 days to the Centre to come back with its stand on the issueThe court which has been hearing the pleas on a daily basis since January 10 has concluded hearing the submissions of petitioners Delhi government and some NGOs which have been opposing the pleasOn Friday Sharma submitted that the petitioners should advance their rejoinder arguments after the Centre places its arguments before the courtHowever the bench said that either the central government shall start its submissions from January 31 or it would hear the rejoinder arguments of petitionersYou are not starting so we will hear them What to do now If you do not start we will hear them Without you it is not going anywhere At least we will hear Karuna Nundy and Colin Gonsalves counsel for petitioners the bench saidSharma responded by saying there was no unseemly hurry in the matter and the court has already granted time to the CentreTo this Justice Shakdher shot back Please dont say that We have taken out our judicial time on this so dont say this and dont enter on side issues Let us have a dialogue on more substantial things which is the law Take a week after they have finished but at least start You can come back on that the bench saidDuring the hearing NGO Men Welfare Trust MWT which is opposing the batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape submitted that the Domestic Violence Act was specifically promulgated for recognizing spouse sexual violenceAdvocate Sai Deepak J representing the NGO submitted that the immunity provided is to protect the civil liberties of the husband thanks to the nature of the relationshipHe also clarified that the entity which he represents is not against recognition of spousal sexual violence and claimed that some of the news reports have slightly misconstrued his submissionsOn this the bench said by the time we finish we will also face flak Nundy also submitted that she has received rape threats but she has not talked about itMWTs counsel had earlier argued that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife cannot be treated at par with that in non-marital relationships as the issue of consent cannot be divorced from the context of a marriageThe bench was hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation All India Democratic Womens Association a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape lawUnder the exception given in Section 375 of the IPC sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife the wife not being under fifteen years of age is not rapeThe petitioners had said that marital rape was the biggest form of sexual violence against women and the Delhi government had said that this act was already covered as a crime of cruelty under IPCThe petitioner NGO has challenged the Constitutionality of section 375 IPC on the ground that it discriminated against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Jan 20 PTI The Delhi High Court Thursday sought the Centres reply on a plea seeking direction to quash the Lead Stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride Pipes and Fittings Rules 2021 which mandate obtaining licence from the Bureau of Indian Standards for manufacturing PVC pipes and to have the BIS Standard Mark on themA bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice and asked the ministries of Environment Forest and Climate Change MoEFCC and Consumer Affairs BIS Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana State Pollution Control Board to respond to the petitionThe court listed the matter for further hearing on February 28 saying that before passing any order it wishes to know the stand of the CentreThe Centre was represented through standing counsel Anurag AhluwaliaThe petition by PVC Pipe Manufacturers Haryana Association has challenged the legality validity and proprietary of the Lead Stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride Pipes and Fittings Rules 2021 notified by MoEFCC to the extent that it mandates obtaining licence from BIS for manufacturing Polyvinyl Chloride PVC pipes and to mark the BIS Standard Mark on themIt said the rules have been framed by the ministry through a notification on March 30 2021 pursuant to the May 2017 order of National Green TribunalThe petitioner association represented through senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao contended that the rules illegally and arbitrarily made it mandatory to have the BIS licence and the Standard MarkPrior to the rules it was optional for the PVC pipe manufacturers to obtain BIS licence considering the requirement of the market and their consumer base said the petition filed through advocates Animesh Kumar Nishant Kumar Utkarsh Sharma and Shweta SinghIt said there are several PVC products that are required for plumbing work but are not covered under any of the BIS standards and such non-standard items do not have any replacementTherefore the complete construction sector will come into stand still if only the products with ISI standard marking are allowed to be produced it saidIn order to obtain BIS certification the PVC pipe manufacturers are not only required to comply with the prescribed lead standards but also with certain others including use Indian Standards Institutes ISI mark not at all related to the lead content in the product PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Jan 19 PTI The Delhi High Court Wednesday sought response of the Centre on a plea challenging the expansion of the definition of a drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS Act A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Centre and asked it to respond to the petition which will be taken up for hearing next on February 28 The petitioner a resident of Kerala has challenged two notifications of 2001 and 2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance under the NDPS Act saying the notifications were issued in excess of conferred authority and are ultra vires to the law Petitioner Rajeev T M in the plea submitted that the two notifications under Section 2 viia and 2 xxiiia of the NDPS Act have the effect of creating a new category of offence by penalising the preparation of a drug at par with the drug itself There is no rational nexus between the classification created by these notifications and the object of the NDPS Act and therefore there is a violation of Article 14 equality before law of the Constitution The notifications seek to create a classification of drug users and quantities based on the total weight of the drug including the weight of neutral material and not on the weight of the pure drug content which is the correct indicator of whether a quantity is a commercial quantity or a small quantity intended for personal consumption advocate J Sai Deepak representing the petitioner submitted The plea said if the notifications are applied 4 grams of heroin would be a small quantity but if an addict mixes them with 50 kgs of powdered sugar then the same would be a commercial quantity that has ramifications as grave as incarceration up to 20 years The application of the notifications creates a situation where there would be no rational nexus between this aforesaid objective of rationalising sentencing by taking a reformative approach towards treating addicts and the proposed classification which places both addicts and drug traffickers on even footing as long as the addict dilutes their drug more than the trafficker it said while seeking to quash the two notifications The plea said the act of adding the weight of a neutral substance to the weight of pure drug content for determining the weight of small quantity or commercial quantity is unreasonable and arbitrary and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution It further said the notifications violate Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty also because it enhances the criminalisation of possession of a drug if it is mixed with enough neutral material Whereas as per the NDPS Act a person would be criminalised at the level of small quantity for possession of say 4 grams of heroin the notifications enhance this criminalisation to the level of commercial quantity which increases the incarceration to as much as 20 years if the said 4 grams of heroin is diluted by the addition of neutral material Therefore this is violative of Article 21 as it severely affects the personal liberty and right to life of the petitioner it said It contended that the NDPS Act requires only the pure narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances to be considered for determining quantities and therefore the notifications are wrong The plea said the petitioner is facing prosecution in a case under the NDPS Act and is presently out on bail PTI SKV SKV RKS RKS

New Delhi Nov 30 PTI The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the Centres response on a plea seeking live streaming of proceedings on petitions to recognise same-sex marriages under the special Hindu and foreign marriage lawsA bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh granted time to the Centres counsel to take instructions on the issue and file reply listing the matter for further hearing on February 3The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by several same sex couples seeking a declaration recognising same sex marriages under the special Hindu and foreign marriage lawsSenior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul representing some of the petitioners submitted that in view of the rights involved live streaming of proceedings is essential as it concerns seven to eight per cent of the total population of the countryHe further said it a matter of great national and constitutional importance and live streaming can host a larger populationKaul submitted that his clients represent a section of public who are eagerly looking forward to the outcome of these cases and though a large number of people want to attend the proceedings they are unable to do so due to limitation of technical platformsHe said the Supreme Court and Attorney General of India and the Bar have been in favour of live streaming of proceedings which are in national interest and these petitions fall in this categoryHe gave examples of High Courts of Gujarat Odisha and Karnataka which have taken a lead and formulated rules for live streaming of proceedingsThe high court also issued notice and sought the Centres reply on two separate petitions represented through senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi with one filed by two lesbian women who have already solemnised their marriage at Varanasi in February 2018 and are seeking recognition of marriage and the other filed by a transgender person who has undergone a sex reassignment surgery and entered into a civil union with her husband in South Africa and seeks recognition of the marriageThe application for live streaming of proceedings was filed in the pending petition filed by Abhijit Iyer MitraMitra and three others have contended that marriages between same sex couples are not possible despite the Supreme Court decriminalising consensual homosexual acts and sought a declaration to recognise same sex marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act HMA and Special Marriage Act SMAThe two other pleas are --- one filed by two women seeking to get married under the SMA and challenging provisions of the statute to the extent it does not provide for same sex marriages and the other filed by two men who got married in the US but were denied registration of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act FMAAnother petition seeks to allow a foreign-origin spouse of an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder to apply for OCI registration regardless of gender or sexual orientationSolicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Centre had earlier argued that a spouse means either husband or wife and marriage is a term associated with heterosexual couples and there was no need to file a specific reply regarding the Citizenship ActThe law as it standspersonal laws are settled and marriage which is contemplated to be is between biological man and biological woman he had adding that there is some misconception of petitioners regarding the Supreme Courts verdict decriminalising consensual homosexual actThe petition filed by equal rights activists Mitra Gopi Shankar M Giti Thadani and G Oorvasi contended that homosexual sex has been decriminalised by the apex court but same-sex marriages are still not being allowed under the provisions of the HMAThe two women who were represented by senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy and lawyers Arundhati Katju Govind Manoharan and Surabhi Dhar have said in their plea that they have been living together as a couple for 8 years in love with each other sharing the highs and lows of life but unable marry as they are a same sex coupleThe women aged 47 years and 36 years have contended that not being allowed to get married has denied them several rights -- liking owning a house opening a bank account family life insurance -- which opposite sex couples take for grantedThe two men also represented by the same set of lawyers were married in the United States but their marriage was not registered under the FMA by the Indian consulate as they were a same sex coupleThe couple who was in a relationship since 2012 and got married in 2017 has also claimed that during the COVID-19 pandemic non recognition of their marriage by the laws here continues to disentitle them to travel as a married couple to IndiaCentral government has opposed same-sex marriage on the ground that marriage in India is not just a union of two individuals but an institution between biological man and womanIt has also said that judicial interference will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal lawsAny interpretation other than treating a husband as a biological man and a wife as a biological woman will make all statutory provisions unworkable it has said adding that marriage is essentially a socially recognized union of two individuals which is governed either by uncodified personal laws or codified statutory laws PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Nov 30 PTI The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought response of the Centre on a plea seeking live streaming of proceedings on petitions to recognise same sex marriages under the special Hindu and foreign marriage lawsA bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh granted time to the counsel for the Centre to take instructions on the issue and file reply and listed the matter for further hearing on February 3The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by several same sex couples seeking a declaration recognising same sex marriages under the special Hindu and foreign marriage lawsSenior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul representing some of the petitioners submitted that in view of the rights involved live streaming of proceedings is essential as it concerns seven to eight per cent of the total population of the countryHe further said it a matter of national importance and live streaming can host a larger populationThe high court also issued notice and sought the Centres reply on two separate petitions with one filed by two women who have already solemnised their marriage abroad and seek recognition here and the other filed by a transgender who has undergone a sex reassignment surgery PTI SKV SKV DV DV

Mumbai Nov 29 PTI The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Union government to apprise it on January 17 2022 about the introduction of the bill on cryptocurrency and what further action has been taken on the issue A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik said it cannot direct the parliamentary legislation to enact a law The court was hearing a public interest litigation PIL filed by advocate Aditya Kadam seeking directions to the central government to formulate laws to govern the use and trade of cryptocurrency within the country Kadam highlighted the unregulated business of cryptocurrency in the country which he claimed affects the rights of the investors as there is no mechanism in law to redress their grievances Advocate D P Singh appearing for the Centre told the court that the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill has been introduced and would be discussed in the winter session of Parliament Kadam however argued that a similar statement was made by the Union government in 2018 and 2019 but no action was taken thereafter The court said it would keep the petition for further hearing on January 17 Lets see if they government enact the law With the introduction of the bill the allegations raised in the petition that the government has not taken any steps would be incorrect the bench said We cannot direct the parliamentary legislation to enact a law Chief Justice Datta said The Union government shall apprise us on the next date if the bill was introduced and what further action has been taken the court said The bill proposes to create a facilitative framework for creation of the official digital currency to be issued by the Reserve Bank of India It also seeks to prohibit all private cryptocurrencies in India However it allows for certain exceptions to promote the underlying technology of cryptocurrency and its uses PTI SP GK GK

New Delhi Nov 24 PTI The Delhi High Court Wednesday directed the Centre to continue providing security to a senior UP police officer who was the investigating officer IO in Nitish Katara murder case and is retiring soon as he apprehends threat to his life Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said the authorities shall continue providing security to Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP Anil Samaniya till the next date of hearing on December 10 The high court issued notice and sought response of the Ministry of Home Affairs Delhi government Delhi Police UP government and Director General of UP Police on the petition by the officer who is retiring on November 30 and fears for his life Samaniya said he has been provided with security cover since 2002 till date and after his retirement the security would be withdrawn and in that event his life as well as that of his family members would be in grave danger He said he is retiring after exemplary service of 40 years from the UP Police and had investigated the infamous Nitish Katara murder case in which Vikas and Vishal Yadav son and nephew of ex minister D P Yadav were involved Advocate P K Dey representing the officer said Nitish Kataras mother Nilam Katara and Ajay Katara who were witnesses in the murder case have already been provided with round the clock security looking at the threat perception In view of the facts and circumstances particularly influence of D P Yadav it is expedient in the interest of justice and looking to the life and liberty of the petitioner Samaniya and his family that security may be ordered to be provided to them by a central agency or any other agency so that the petitioner may lead a secured and peaceful life the plea said On October 3 2016 the Supreme Court had awarded a 25-year jail term without any benefit of remission to Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal for their role in the sensational kidnapping and killing of Katara Another co-convict Sukhdev Pehalwan was also handed down a 20-year jail term in the case Prior to this the Delhi High Court while upholding the life imprisonment awarded to Vikas and Vishal Yadav by the trial court had specified a 30-year sentence without any remission to both of them It had awarded a 25-year jail term to third convict Pehalwan All three were convicted and sentenced for kidnapping Nitish Katara from a marriage party on the intervening night of February 16-17 2002 and then killing him for his alleged affair with Bharti Yadav the sister of Vikas Bharti is the daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician D P Yadav who is in jail in connection with another murder case Katara was murdered as Vishal and Vikas Yadav did not approve of his affair with Bharti because they belonged to different castes the lower court had said in its verdict PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Nov 18 PTI The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to place before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet a 2019 proposal for appointment to the post of Director National School of Drama and set aside a subsequent selection process initiated in 2020Justice Jyoti Singh said that if the name of Dr J Thulaseedhara Kurup who filed a petition for appointment to the post as per the result of a selection process initiated in 2018 if approved he shall be appointed to the post of Director NSD forthwithThe exercise shall be carried out by the Ministry of Culture within two weeks said the judge who observed that despite being duly qualified and eligible for the post the petitioner became a victim of the circumstances and the delay in the process of selection which remains unexplained and unjustified In view of the material placed before it the court noted that the petitioner was in the first position in the merit listThe court allowed the petition with a direction that costs of Rs 25000 be paid to the petitioner by the MinistryKurup claimed that his name was recommended for the post but the Ministry of Culture instead of concluding the selection process on time raised issues concerning his qualificationsDuring the pendency of the petition a fresh notification was issued by the authorities in 2020 inviting applications for the post of Director NSDIt is a settled law that a candidate has right of consideration and had Respondent No2 Ministry of Culture acted diligently the proposal forwarded by Respondent No2 would have received consideration by Respondent No3 ACC Petitioner has clearly been wronged and in my view his case deserves consideration by Respondent No3 in accordance with the law the judge said in her order passed on November 16The court stated that the Centre did not comply with the timelines set by it to complete the process in a time-bound manner andobserved that it was clear from the files and the affidavits that efforts were made to delay and stall the processEven today before this Court the explanation for delay borders on the usual and routine reasons ie movement of files from one Department to the other inter-departmental consultations queries and clarifications and finally the plea of validity of the panelAs afore-noted the movement of the file and the communications by Respondent No2 do not satisfy the conscience of this Court that diligent steps were taken by Respondent No2 to ensure that timelines are adhered to not only because of the hanging sword of the DoPT OM but also the need to abide by the binding and enduring directions of a Court of Law After perusing the files and the affidavits the position is crystal clear that efforts were made to delay and stall the process the court saidFor all the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed Notification dated July 17 2020 and the process of selection pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside Respondent No2 is directed to place the recommendation of Respondent No1 along with its proposal dated July 11 2019 before Respondent No3 for its consideration the court orderedPTI ADS RKS RKS