The Delhi High Court as asked for the status report from the North-East Delhi Riots Claims Commission (NEDRCC) office that was set up by the Delhi government in April 2020, about the complete details of the claims and the amounts that were disbursed.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Secretary of the Claims Commission to place for putting on record the way by which processing the applications for claims was made and the compensation was awarded.

The Court has asked for a status report be placed on record within four weeks.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions which was filed by victims of the riots seeking compensation in accordance with Delhi Government’s Assistance Scheme for the Help of Riot Victims.

There were quite a few petitioners who sought for enhanced compensation.The assistance scheme was introduced by the Delhi Government to compensate and assist the victims of the riots. It provides for compensation for the death of a major or a minor, permanent incapacitation, serious or minor injuries and loss of property.

The petitioner counsel submitted that the office of the Claims Commission has conducted surveys in some of the cases and the amounts awarded are much below as fixed under Delhi government’s scheme.

Advocate Karuna Nundy who represented a petitioner said they are seeking enhanced compensation and are aggrieved about the grant of ex gratia compensation of total Rs. 5 lakhs for the two children who died during the riots.

She submitted that the compensation awarded is much lesser and an additional grant of Rs. 5 lakhs needs to be provided.On the other hand, Delhi government’s standing counsel Samir Vashisht submitted that the Claims Commission has been assessing the claims and that a status report can be called for complete details regarding progress of the applications so far.

Considering that the petitioners are persons with various financial constraints, Justice Singh observed that the Claims Commission ought to proceed expeditiously in the matters.The court observed that before proceeding to hear the petitions, it would be appropriate to call for the status report to ascertain what the Claims Commission has been doing with the applications received by the victims.

“I want to see what the commission is doing and then proceed to hear the matter,” the court said while listing the matter on April 28.

Bhupinder Tomer aka Pinki Chaudhry, President of Hindu Raksha Dal, withdrew his application for anticipatory bail listed before Delhi High Court.

The Counsel appearing for Pinki Chaudhry informed the court that the application had become infructuous as his client has been arrested on August 31.

Pinki Chaudhry is an accused in the Jantar Mantar anti-Muslim sloganeering incident at a march against Colonial-era laws in the country, called by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. Purported videos of the said event had shown people shouting slogans, threatening to harm Muslims.

On September 2, a Delhi Court had sent Pinki Chaudhry to 14 days judicial custody. Earlier,  Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil had rejected the application for anticipatory bail, stating: “We are not a Taliban State. Rule of law is sacrosanct in plural and multi-cultural society.”

Ashwini Upadhyay has been granted bail, after being remanded to 2 days judicial custody.

The Delhi High Court has asked the All India Institute of Medicinal Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi to consider the case of a 44-year-old woman suffering from esophageal (food pipe) cancer seeking required surgery while ensuring her well-being amid the overall Covid-19 situation. (Madhuri Gaur Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors)  

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh said, “This Court is confident that the team at AIIMS dealing with petitioner’s case in the Department of Surgical Oncology, would ensure that a correct balance is drawn between ensuring the well-being of the petitioner as also the Covid-19 situation which is prevalent currently. Steps for the conduct of the surgery are directed to be taken immediately upon the surgeon/team in the concerned department recommending the same for the petitioner, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances.”

The Court has considered the affidavit filed by AIIMS that surgery for esophageal cancer is considered elective surgery and it is generally recommended to perform the surgery within 8 weeks of chemo-radiotherapy. Due to the Covid crisis, the AIIMS hospital has been converted into a Covid facility. 

The Court after noting the submissions of the parties directed that the CT scan report of the patient along with the CT scan itself, may be transmitted to the surgeon concerned, through learned Senior Counsel Satvik Verma. The petitioner’s counsel shall hand over the CT scan report to Verma, so that it can be passed on to the doctor/ surgeon concerned who is dealing with the petitioner’s case. 

After the surgeon has examined the CT scan report, a teleconsultation be arranged between the surgeon/ oncology team concerned and with the petitioner, in order to fix the date of the surgery, keeping in mind the Covid situation in AIIMS, as also the probable date of resumption of elective surgeries.

The Delhi High Court has observed that a perusal of the status report filed by AIIMS shows that the said report confirms the fact that the petitioner has received chemo-radiotherapy at the National Cancer Institute till April 7, 2021. Thereafter, all OPDs and elective surgeries at AIIMS were closed due to the Covid-19 situation. The report also confirms that the petitioner was to get a CT scan done for surgical review. Paragraph 3 of the status report is significant to the effect that it recommends the surgery to be performed within eight weeks of the chemo-radiotherapy.

The case of the petitioner is that she was being treated at the National Cancer Institute located at AIIMS, Delhi where she was required to undergo treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in two phases. The first phase of her chemotherapy and radiotherapy was conducted on April 7, 2021 and the second phase was scheduled for April 30, 2021. However, since elective surgeries have been postponed during the pandemic, the second phase of the petitioner’s treatment is not being conducted.

The counsel for the petitioner contended the status report filed by AIIMS supports his case to the effect that the petitioner requires surgery on top priority. He submits that so long as the surgeon in AIIMS can schedule a surgery, within a reasonable time period, so as not to adversely affect the condition of the petitioner, the petitioner would be satisfied. And the petitioner has already gotten a CT Scan done and the report has been shown to the private doctor, according to whom, there has been an improvement. He submits that the petitioner wishes to show the CT scan report to the surgeon in AIIMS, who is dealing with the petitioner, again.

Read Also: Re-clothing Emperor India

Respondent’s senior counsel Verma has contended that currently the entire hospital has been made a Covid hospital, and no elective surgeries are being performed. He submitted that the CT Scan report of the petitioner was required for the surgeon to take a call as to whether the petitioner’s condition was improving. He further submitted that despite the fact that petitioner had undergone chemotherapy on April 7, 2021 and the notification relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and of the closure of elective surgeries was issued on April 19, 2021, the petitioner was again evaluated and seen by the doctor concerned in AIIMS on April 28, 2021. He finally submitted that no mandamus can be issued by this court, directing AIIMS to get a particular surgery performed.

The Delhi High Court today directed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to issue comprehensive guidelines/order today itself, containing all the requirements and protocols to be followed in one document. This, said the court, should be communicated to all airports across the country and they should adhere to those strictly.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh passed directions on the following lines:

1. All personnel should be bound to give an undertaking and declaration that they have not consumed alcohol in the previous 12 hours in terms of the DGCA regulations. The undertaking and declaration would be compulsory for all personnel.
2. Following the undertaking are there will be a breath analyser (BA) test followed by a rapid antigen test, by a doctor paramedic present. All this will have to be completed before duty starts. This is to ascertain that these staff members do not have Covid, neither are they likely to transmit it asymptomatically.
3. The BA test, as far as possible, will have to be done by the DGCA in a large room or an open area which has CCTV coverage. This would ensure that aerosol exposure is removed.
4. The antigen testing will have to be random (ATC, pilots and cabin crew).
5. In so far as the testing is concerned as submitted by the counsel for DGCA a total of 6 persons shall be tested in 1 hour duration. The testing equipment shall be subjected to UVCA radiation as per the protocol already prescribed by the DGCA which was considered by the committee appointed by the DGMS air.

The court passed the above directions after recording submissions of the Counsel appearing in the matter and disposed off all the three writ petitions.

The DGMS replied: “Ms Gosain appearing for the DGCA submits that an attempt shall be made to conduct the Breath Analyser test (BAT) in an open area as far as possible. Even in places where open area test is not possible it shall be ensured that the room shall be sanitised after every test and in any event not more than 6 person shall be tested in an hour. In subject to percentages she submits for ATCO the testing will be random, for pilots and cabin crew the testing will be random with the maximum of 8-10 percent. It should be the permitted percentage of the personnel tested. In so far as rapid antigen test is considered, the DGMS AIR is in the opinion that it may create longer waiting time and overcrowding hence the same may not be required. In accordance with the report of DGMS AIR, she further submits that DGCA itself is conscious of the interest of its personnel and passengers. Subject to the undertaking by all the personnel the testing shall be only as much as it is required and in terms of the DGCA protocols as submitted above.”

Mr Sanghi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the BA test ought to be conducted in an open area so that safety of the ATC can be taken care of.

Mr Pujari, appearing for the commercial pilots, submits that cap should be reduced to 5% instead of 8%. He also refers to the testing room of Surat airport as a photograph has been shown to the court today to show that the space available in rooms are very constricted and hence there is a chance of overcrowding, the DGCA should publish the revised protocol in a comprehensive manner for the duly adherence.”

The Delhi High Court had previously asked the Director General Medical Services (Air) to consider whether the breath analyzer test (BAT) can be conducted in an open area with mobile electrical connectivity so that the spread of Corona Virus through suspended particles/aerosols in a confined room can be avoided for the safety of the cabin crew, ATCs and pilots.

The court, on May 5, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the data, asked the DGMS (Air) to consider the following issues in compliance of its previous order dated 27th April 2021:

Read Also: Death by fake Remdesivir: Vivek Tankha writes to MP CM Shivraj Chouhan, seeks action

i) Whether the BAT can be conducted in an open area with mobile electrical connectivity so that the spread of Covid-19 through the suspended particles/aerosols in a confined room can be avoided for the safety of the cabin crew, ATCs and pilots?
ii) Whether the DGMS (Air) approves the percentages mentioned in the order dated 27th April, 2021 or should the same be random for all categories of employees – i.e., ATCs, pilots and cabin crew?
iii) Whether the cabin crew, ATCs and other personnel who have to undergo the BAT could be first subjected to a rapid antigen test and thereafter be made to undergo the BAT?
iv) Whether the percentages need to be changed and if so, to what extent.

The court had asked the DGMS (Air) to submit a report by 10th May 2021 on the aforesaid aspect and further listing the matter for further hearing on 11th May 2021.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued notice in a plea filed by an NGO which sought an extension of the March 31 deadline for opening an account under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 regulations.

The plea said the NGO, Christian Educational Society, had wanted to open its FCRA bank account in State Bank of India, New Delhi in terms of amendments to Section 17 of the FCR Act.The last date as per the notification dated October 13, 2020 for submitting the application to open FCRA bank account was April 1, 2021. The NGO alleged that it submitted its documents to the SBI, New Delhi on March 25, 2021. But certain defects were raised in respect to the application and SBI communicated this to the NGO on March 27 and on April 8. Thereafter, it is alleged, that the NGO’s representative located in Delhi submitted all hard copies of the documents that are required for the said application and to open the FCRA account in SBI, Delhi.

Due to the pandemic, there has been some delay in the said submission of documents, and possibly even in the processing of the same by the SBI. The NGO’s counsel submitted that an extension may be granted for opening the said FCRA account beyond March 31. The counsel expressed that the NGO is unable to accept any foreign contributions or funding, in the meantime, which is jeopardizing its actions, given the dire situation of the pandemic, and need for such funding to provide social and economic help to the needy.

The SBI counsel sought time from the bench to take instructions as to how long the bank would take to open FCRA account of the said NGO.

Read Also: West Bengal govt moves Supreme Court seeking free Covid vaccine across the country

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act regulates the receipt of foreign contribution or aid from outside India for use in the country. This is essential to ensure that such aid does not effect political or any other situation in India. For genuine donation, the provision of law is not very difficult to comply. The compliance is limited to filing annual return every year. This law is enforced by the Ministry of Home Affairs. There is a separate section in the MHA to ensure compliance to the Foreign Funding Registration.

The Delhi High Court on Friday has sought the response of the Delhi Government on a plea seeking directions for setting up the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) for Delhi in compliance with the obligations under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. 

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh hasn’t issued any formal notice but has sought the response of the Government of NCT of Delhi, through the Department of Health & Family Welfare. The court would hear the matter next on July 22, 2021. 

The petitioner has alleged that he had suffered a gross breach of his right to confidentiality protected under section 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 as well as his fundamental right to confidentiality and protection of personal information guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution, causing him immense trauma and distress.  

He said, thereafter, he made complaints dated August 6, 2020 and September 16, 2020, to respondent No. 3 in terms of section 28 of the Act. The respondent hospital, however, sent a joint reply to the petitioner on October 5, 2020, refusing to initiate proceedings under the act. Being highly aggrieved with this response, he then sought to approach the MHRB, which is the authority of the second instance.

However, on account of the govt of NCT and State Mental Health Authority failure to implement the 2017 Act, the State authority set up under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987, continues to operate as the SMHA for Delhi under the 2017 Act, as well as the MHRB, which is entirely contrary to the scheme of the Act. This is despite the mandate on the govt of NCT to set up the SMHA within nine months of the 2017 Act receiving Presidential assent, and which it did on April 7, 2017.

Read Also: Supreme Court overturns order of Madras HC bench, restores single judge order in property case

“I a complete contrast to the 1987 Act, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provides for an expanded and balanced judicial, administrative, and medical representation in SMHA and MHRB and most importantly, also provides for the representation of persons who have or have had mental illnesses as members. There is limited public information available with regard to the membership of the SMHA and MHRB,” said the plea. 

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Centre to provide details within two days on the allocation of funds and expenditure for rare diseases along with details of the proposed consortium for the management of rare diseases.

A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M. Singh heard a batch of connected matters relating to the allocation of funds for people suffering from rare diseases.

On March 2, the Delhi High Court had constituted a nine-member Committee for the examination of feasibility of accelerated approvals and explore confidential proposal put up by M/s Sarepta Therapeutics for the purpose of making the therapy available for children suffering from rare disease Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).

“It appears that clinical trials are already underway in India for drugs/therapies for the treatment of DMD,” the Court had noted in its order.

The court was hearing the batch of petitions filed by the parents of children suffering from DMD seeking direction to the Central Government to provide free treatment for the rare disease as the disease fall under the category of Rare Disease in the Draft Health Policy for Rare Diseases, 2020.

Over the issue of Crowdfunding the bench had observed,

“The clear stand of the Union of India appears to be that until the policy gets notified and the eplatform for crowdfunding is created, there can be no crowdfunding which can be explored.”

However, counsel appearing for the Ministry of Health submitted that he has written to four organisations to arrange for funding for treatment of the said patients.

The bench had appointed Dr. Renu Swarup, Secretary of Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India as the Chairperson of the committee and other members from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Dystrophy Annihilation Research Trust, Institute of Child Health, CHILDS Trust Hospital and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The bench had directed the committee to submit a report over the major aspects:

• How to immediately provide treatment and therapy options to the Petitioners and similarly situated patients suffering from DMD, Hunter’s syndromes and other rare diseases.

• Steps to be taken to indigenize the development of the therapies in India, and reasonable timelines required to be followed thereof

• Whether accelerated approval processes can be considered especially in view of the research currently being undertaken in India for DMD?

• Immediate concrete proposals for crowdfunding of the costs of treatment for children with rare diseases.

The bench had further directed the Central Government to file an affidavit specifying the budget for health in the last five years and whether any part of the budget has been unused and can be used for the purpose of treatment of the Petitioners or the indigenous development of therapies for the treatment of rare diseases.

The matter would now be heard on March 17.

Read Also: Delhi HC seeks Bar Council of India, Delhi Bar Council views on petition against Rule 8 of Advocate Act

The Delhi High Court has ordered that authorities like the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) are obligated to ensure that places of worship are not created on public land by unscrupulous persons through encroachment.

A single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bal Bhagwan.

The petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the DDA seeking permanent injunction restraining the DDA from demolishing or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from three temple premises, namely Mandir Kali Mai, Mandir Bada Beer Dham and Mandir Shivji Maharaj, situated on private land bearing measuring 4 bigha 3 biswas and a temple premises of Sankat Mochan Bajrang Bali on land measuring 2 bigha 11 biswas of village Khampura Raya, Delhi bearing Swami Onkara Nand Ashram, New Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

While citing the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 62 in which the Court has, taken cognizance of this menace and directed state governments and union territories to review the situation and take appropriate action in an expeditious manner.

“In respect of the unauthorised construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case-to-case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” the Court stated.

The bench elaborated in the judgment that,

“Such attempts by unscrupulous parties ought to be discouraged, inasmuch as the occupants, under the garb of a place of worship, turn the land into a completely unplanned encroachment by hundreds of people. The authorities have an obligation to ensure that in public land, places of worship are not created in this manner.”

In the present case, the land in question was located in the heart of Delhi, and pictures put on record by the DDA, the court noted that, “The mandir constitutes a miniscule portion of the entire land which has various commercial shops and residences.”

The fact of the case was that manager had been shown to be in settled possession on the basis of the jamabandis, khasra girdwaries and the DDA’s own plan, therefore his possession could not be disturbed except in accordance with law.

Since the temple was already in existence and the manager/his predecessor was managing the said temple, the DDA was well aware of the risk of taking over the said land.

Advocate Rajiv Bansal, appearing for the DDA, submitted that being filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the plea was not an appellate remedy and the court could not interfere with the lower court’s order unless there is “flagrant miscarriage of justice or abuse of the principles of law”. It further submitted that none of the documents placed on record by the manager proved his title over the land.

Bansal pleaded that the land was in fact being used for commercial purposes and not for the purpose of mandirs as, on both the parcels of lands of the suit, which were more than one and a half acres i.e. 6,700 sq. yards, the four mandirs are in a very small portion and the remaining portion consisted of a residence, shops and factories.

On the aspect of the DDA having taken over the land on ‘as is where is’ basis, Bansal submitted that this only meant that the Government of India was not giving any guarantees or warrantys in respect of the land.

The transfer of property to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/North Delhi Municipal Corporation was for the purposes of providing municipal amenities and facilities in the area concerned. He argued further that khasra girdhawaris and other revenue records do not confer any title.

Also Read: Delhi HC directs website to remove article against Amul milk, milk products

The Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the manager, giving strict observations regarding encroachment of public properties in the garb of places of worship while ruling in favour of DDA.

Delhi HC bench to hear petitions to find a solution to the mess

While the Delhi University (DU), in the face of stiff opposition and protests, may have developed cold feet and had started thinking of postponing the final Open Book Exams (OBE) till after August 15 (or even later, originally scheduled for July 10), the Delhi High Court, resuming its hearing today (July 8) in the issue, has referred the case to the Division bench which sits tomorrow.

What was presented to the court today essentially were new office memoranda (OM) and SOP issued by the Universities Grants Commission (UGC) – issued today – in which the university has been given time to conduct the exams by September 29.

It was also made known to the court that universities have been allowed the option of conducting the exams online or offline or through a blend of both. This is subject to the residential status of the students.

Counsel Sunita Ojha, appearing for the Union of India (UoI), reiterated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has even given permission to hold physical written and oral exams. This was as per the advisory issued to DU.

It was informed that the decision was taken in a meeting yesterday (July 7) by a high-powered committee to postpone the exams. Today two fresh petitions have been filed which say that because of the enormous uncertainty that has arisen from the repeated postponements of exams by the university, the students should be allowed a closure and be promoted on the basis on previous marks of previous or internal exams.

It was also said that a large number of emails have been sent by students and issues have been raised that will come into the picture in the case of a postponement. These were issues such as their inability to pursue post grad studies in the US and/or the UK where transcripts have to be submitted by July-August. There was also the inability to gain employment in PSUs etc.

Several students have informed that their family members have been found COVID positive and some have been found positive themselves, so they cannot appear for exams. More than 500 emails have come from students who have suffered mental trauma because of the ongoing uncertainties arising out of continuous postponement.

The admissions issue

It has been alleged that the DU has been treating this exam issue without thinking about the plight of the students. The issue had reached the offices of HRD Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal, who held a meeting yesterday and now it s learnt that the university is also looking for an extension of its admission window. This will allow students appearing for engineering and medical entrance tests. While the JEE (Main), is scheduled for September 1 to 6, NEET is scheduled for September 13. JEE (Advanced) is set for September 27.

Yesterday, the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh, heard a petition filed by a final year PG student, Anupam, along with other students of Delhi University.

The students wanted a court directive on a June 6 notification of Delhi University which talked about conducting a remote, OBE for final year under graduate and PG students. This included students of School of Open Learning (SOL) and the Non-Collegiate Women’s Education Board (NCWEB).

Advocate Akash Sinha, representing the petitioners, detailed the problems faced by students. These included the lack of access to proper internet facilities. Many students are stuck in areas where there is complete lockdown and hence no internet access through cafes. Then there are some students stuck in flooded areas. Above all, the mock tests conducted by Delhi University were full of glitches. Many students of the University did not have access to online classes and they do not have their books and study material with them, because they are stuck elsewhere. The appeal was that conducting exams under such circumstances would amount to severe injustice to the students.

Among the instruction that the court passed yesterday were the following:

i)… the DU shall place on record the following data:

a) The number of students who are studying in the final year of DU and the number of students who are registered for the final year examinations to be conducted through the online process;

b) A state-wise break-up of the students and from where they have to take the examinations;

c) Preparedness of the website portal for handling of the traffic during examinations, keeping in mind the recent technical glitches faced by students during the mock exams;

d) The schedule of examinations i.e., evaluation of papers, date for announcement of results and date for issuance of transcripts. While preparing and placing on record the schedule before this Court, DU shall bear in mind the deadlines for all the final year students who have to seek employment, deadlines for postgraduate entrance examinations, deadlines for submission of documents to international universities where students may have secured admission etc.”

The proposed inter-based exams have posed a serious logistical problem, as deposited before the court. It has also been reported that exam managers and operators from different parts in Haryana, Punjab and Assam seem to have no idea of the proposed OBE. They have reportedly said that they have not even received any notification.

– India Legal Bureau