Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Bail - Prayer for - Entire case of prosecution based on circumstantial evidence - Co-accused was enlarged on bail - Accused who had no other criminal antecedents was in custody from 10.02.2024 - Allegations found in charge sheet were required to be proved in full-fledged trial - Accordingly, bail was granted subject to conditions.
Anukriti Arya v.
University Of Delhi (Through Vice Chancellor)
D.O.D : 11/11/2024
Petition Dismissed
Constitution of India , Art.226— Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act (5 of 2007) , S.3— Admission to MBBS course - Reservation policy - Classification within Children/Widows of Personnel of Armed Forces (CW) category - Challenge against - On ground that CW Category quota is specifically intended to provide reservation or preference solely to wards of Armed Forces personnel and inclusion of wards and widows of Para-Military and Police Personnel under CW Category was arbitrary and illegal since such an inclusion dilutes core intent behind reservation policy - University was acting under instructions and directions of Ministry of Defence as well as Ministry of Home Affairs - Challenge, if any, to alleged arbitrariness of letter and directions of Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of Defence could well be raised in appropriate proceedings by an aggrieved person aggrieved, however, University was bound to follow instructions and communication issued by concerned Ministries - Court could not delve into administrative or policy conflicts between government departments as petitioner had not directly challenged any specific communication issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Policy decisions are not subject to judicial interference unless they are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or manifestly illegal - In absence of demonstrable arbitrariness or illegality in reservation policy followed by University, no interference warranted with same - Classification within CW category for MBBS course was proper.
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Quashing of FIR, final report and proceedings - Offence of murder - Accused was arraigned as accused only on basis of memorandum statement of main accused - There was no recovery from him and he was not identified by sister of deceased in T.I.P. - There was no evidence against him for further prosecution against him - FIR, final report and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
D. Y. Chandrachud,
Manoj Misra
, JJ
Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences Inc v.
Cryoviva Biotech Pvt. Ltd
D.O.D : 08/11/2024
Order Accordingly
Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996) , S.11— Appointment of arbitrator - Application for - According to respondents petitioner had only bought assets of Cryobank USA but, in absence of respondents' consent, he had not stepped into shoes of Cryobank USA - At stage of considering application for appointment of arbitrator, Court is required to examine whether there exists arbitration agreement between parties - Existence of arbitration agreement was not in issue - Therefore, it would not be appropriate for court to delve deep into issue as it could be considered by arbitrator on basis of evidence led by parties - Matter was referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,
J. B. Pardiwala,
Manoj Misra
, JJJ
Rajive Raturi v.
Union of India
D.O.D : 08/11/2024
Order Accordingly
(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016) , S.40, S.41, S.42, S.43, S.44, S.45, S.46, S.89, S.100— Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules (2017) , R.15— Rights of persons with disability - Accessibility - Rules for - Validity - Several of the guidelines prescribed in Rule 15, appear to be recommendatory guidelines, under the garb of mandatory rules. - Rule 15(1) is ultra vires scheme and legislative intent of RPWD Act which creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance - Creating a minimum floor of accessibility cannot be left to the altar of "progressive realization".
Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to the delegated authority. The legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary legislation to the delegate. However, before such delegation, the legislature should enunciate the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegated authority. As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.
Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules have transformed into self regulation by way of delegated legislation. The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of the RPWD Act. While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non-negotiable floor. A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires "progressive realization", this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act.
(B) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016) , S.40— Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules (2017) , R.15— Constitution of India , Art.32— Rights of persons with disabilities - Accessibility - Directions were issued to the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by S.40 of the Act of and accessibility principles to be followed for the same were stated.
Union Government was directed to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months. Said exercise may involve segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR-CDS be involved in the process. It was clarified that progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue unabated. However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules must be prescribed in Rule 15.
Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories shall ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented in cases of noncompliance with Rule 15.
The following principles of accessibility should be considered while carrying out the above exercise: a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations or specialized design; b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis; c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers, audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure digital and informational accessibility across public and private platforms; and d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.
(C) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016) , S.40— Rights of persons with disabilities - Accessibility - Guiding principles - Stated.
a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
S. Vishwajith Shetty
, J
