The 2022 calendar year saw the Delhi High Court pass a number of notable judgments that not only made positive changes in various institutions such as the sports bodies, but also impacted the lives of thousands of underprivileged children.
As the year comes to an end, Today News 24 takes a look at some of the major verdicts passed by the Delhi High Court.
Reforms in sports
To remove mismanagement in sports bodies and to democratise these institutions, the Delhi High Court in August introduced a slew of reforms for the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), including appointing a three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA) to take over its affairs.
Compliance with the Sports Code is non-negotiable, a Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Najmi Waziri said, noting it was high time that structural reforms were implemented to remove the mismanagement in sports bodies and to democratise these institutions.
The Sports Code lays down guidelines for recognition of a National Sports Federations (NSF) for it to enjoy various facilities/concessions provided by the government.
The High Court even struck down the post of Life President and any such permanent post for an individual in the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) as being illegal.
Admission under EWS quota
After a flurry of petitions from economically weaker section (EWS) students seeking to get into private schools in the city, the Delhi High Court in December issued a series of reforms to streamline their admission process under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in an 85-page judgment said, “It is high time the judiciary reaches the people and not wait for the people to reach out to the judiciary, as poor kids are being forced in the instant set of petitions to knock the doors of the Court for availing their Fundamental Right to Education.”
The ruling came in light of the fact that in the past two years around 18,000 children were not provided admission in Delhi under the EWS category even after being selected in the due process by the Department of Education (DoE).
Noting that the implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act is “in tatters,” the High Court ordered the DoE to ensure that all the students be shortlisted and be admitted at the earliest within one month or within the period prescribed by the appropriate authority.
Covid compensation
In December, the High Court told the Delhi government that it was bound by its public announcement for a compassionate payment of ₹1 crore to the kin of Delhi Police Constable Amit Kumar, the first policeman who died on duty during the first wave of COVID-19.
Kumar died on May 5, 2020, while he was posted at Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Delhi, to ensure adherence to COVID-19 lockdown measures. His wife Pooja was expecting their child at the time of his death.
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had then tweeted that the family members of the deceased constable would be given an ex-gratia amount of ₹1 crore. However, Ms. Pooja had not received the amount even two-and-a-half years since his death.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh said the Delhi government “ought not to resile from the clear announcement made for ex-gratia payment”. The judgment is significant as it could ignite similar compensation claims from other families whose kin died on duty.
Woman’s choice to give birth
While the right of a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy or abort the foetus has been the subject matter of debate across the world, the Delhi High Court in December reiterated that the “ultimate decision in such cases ought to recognise the choice of the mother”.
India is among the countries that recognise this choice of the woman, in its law, and has even expanded this right in recent times with amendments permitting termination at an advanced stage, under various circumstances.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh permitted a 26-year-old married woman, whose foetus was detected with cerebral abnormalities, to terminate her pregnancy at 33 weeks.
In India, the latest rules stipulate a ceiling of 24 weeks, for termination of pregnancy for special categories of women which would include survivors of rape, victims of incest and other vulnerable women (like differently abled women, minors) etc. Upper gestation limit does not apply in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by the Medical Board.
Split verdict on marital rape
In May, two judges of the Delhi High Court gave a split verdict on the question of criminalising rape within marriage, leaving the law unchanged.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who headed the two-judge Bench, struck down as unconstitutional the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which says that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife aged 18 or above is not rape even if it is without her consent.
However, Justice C. Hari Shankar rejected the plea to criminalise marital rape noting that any change in the law has to be carried out by the legislature since the issue requires consideration of various aspects, including social, cultural and legal.
The issue will now be decided by the Supreme Court.
