The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on an application seeking summary judgment in a suit moved in 2023 by Aaradhya Bachchan, the grand-daughter of actor Amitabh Bachchan, over circulation of misleading information about her on the internet.

Justice Mini Pushkarna briefly heard the arguments of the counsel representing Bachchan and issued notice to the defendants Google, Bollywood Time and other websites. 

The next date of hearing in the matter is March 17.

Bachchan's counsel, Advocate Pravin Gandhi, stated that the application for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was moved as the defendants failed to appear before the Court and their right to defend already stands closed. 

A summary judgment is a procedure by which the courts can quickly decide civil cases without recording oral evidence.

Aaradhya Bachchan through her father Abhishek Bachchan had moved the High Court in 2023 to restrain various YouTube channels and John Doe defendants (unknown people) from circulating videos that claimed Aaradhya was severely unwell and has been admitted to hospital. One of the videos even claimed that she has passed away.

Even morphed pictures were also used in the videos. Bachchan asserted that the videos violate her right to privacy and the intellectual property rights, which vests in the Bachchan family.

The Court had then granted interim injunction in Bachchan's favour, restraining the defendants from posting any material on her health.

"Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be she the child of a celebrity or the child of a commoner. Dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law. No technicalities can come in the way of the Court stepping in, where such attempts are brought to its notice," Justice C Hari Shankar had observed, while ordering takedown of the videos.

The suit has remained pending since then.

The Madras High Court on Monday questioned the continued usage of the term "Gender Identity Disorder" to describe the state of persons who identify themselves as transgender or part of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that it is inappropriate to use such terms since it presumes that LGBTQIA+ persons are suffering from a disorder, when their sexual orientations and gender identities are natural.

"(Even) big countries are trying to say there is nothing like that (LGBTQ+ identities) ... Somehow impression is given it (LGBTQ+ identities) is a disorder. Why would you use this language - 'Gender Identity Disorder'? it shows the mindset. Whereas what we are trying to do is tell the whole world, there is no disorder (in people being part of LGBTQ+ community). Nature has decided to create someone this way," he said.

He added that if the society's mindset does not change to accept such people as natural, all other efforts will ultimately go to waste.

"You can bring any change in curriculum, but if you continue to say these persons are suffering from "Gender Identity Disorder", all of this is waste, because fundamentally we are not changing (our mindset)” the judge said.

The Court also criticised the National Medical Commission (NMC) for dragging its feet when it came to introducing changes to its regulations and the curriculum in medical schools to do away with outdated notions about the LGBTQIA+ community.

The Bench was told today that the NMC had failed to implement several proactive suggestions made by an expert committee on this issue.

"(Scientific institutions at the level of NMC) are assuming such persons are suffering from "Gender Identity Disorder"! And these are persons who are supposed to be looking at facts as facts," Justice Venkatesh said.

The Court was also told that the NMC was yet to amend its regulations to classify conversion therapy as professional misconduct as the revised regulations introduced in 2023 were yet to be notified.

The judge proceeded to suggest that the existing regulations from 2004 be amended for now, so that conversion therapy is treated as misconduct.

"2004 regulations are in force. Therefore, till the new regulations come into force, steps can be taken to amend the existing regulations and to incorporate conversion therapy as professional misconduct," the Court said.

The order was passed on a case that began in 2021 with a lesbian couple's plea for protection in the face of opposition from their parents to their relationship.

Over time, Justice Venkatesh broadened the scope of the case and issued several directives for the welfare of LGBTQIA+ persons, including the legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ relationships, the need to revamp the curriculum in medical colleges to tackle queerphobia and a proposal to have a State policy for the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community.

During today's hearing, the State informed the Court that it was proposing to have two policies - one for the welfare of transgender and intersex persons and another for others who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

The Court questioned the rationale for such differentiation and asked the State to file a note on the difficulties faced in having one unified policy, instead of two.

The Court also asked the State to place the draft welfare policies before it, so that all stakeholders can given their inputs and ensure that the final shape of the proposed law is a workable one that is unlikely to be challenged later in courts.

The matter will be heard next on February 17. The judge added that come what may, he will not give up on this case.

"I will not get tired, I may get frustrated. I may lament, but that means I am building up energy inside. This is something I find potential for change. Bringing changes of this nature is very difficult. But look at the number of persons helping, that is our strength," he said.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to urgently hear a petition challenging promises made by political parties to distribute cash to voters ahead of the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.

The present plea has been filed by retired Justice SN Dhingra. He argued that these activities not only violate electoral laws, but also infringe upon the fundamental rights of voters and severely hinder the free and fair conduct of the election.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused to list the plea urgently.

The plea also urged for the establishment of monitoring mechanisms to ensure a free and fair election in Delhi.

It further highlighted that political parties including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) have been allocated office spaces in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, as well as land for their party offices in the National Capital at a nominal price by the Central government.

The plea referred to AAP's “Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojana,” BJP's “Mahila Samridhi Yojna,” and Congress' “Pyari Didi Yojna,” through which the parties have promised cash benefits to voters if they come to power.

It is argued that these actions violate provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Section 123(1) (Corrupt Practices), Section 127A (Unauthorized Election Materials), and Section 170 & 171 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Offences of Bribery and Undue Influence During Elections).

It is also claimed that through these schemes, the parties are collecting personal and electoral data of voters without their explicit consent, in violation of their right to privacy.

The petition emphasised that the role of political parties in the democratic setup and the duties they perform reflect their public character.

"...Therefore, even if political parties do not fall under the realm of “State,” they cannot escape judicial scrutiny and may be subject to judicial review and writ jurisdiction of the Indian Courts," the plea added.

The petition has been filed through Advocates Amit Grover, Siddhartha Borgohain and Harshvardhan Sharma.

The Kerala High Court on Monday ordered the demolition and reconstruction of two towers of Chander Kunj Army Towers, a gated community in Silversand Island, Vytilla developed by the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO), under the Army Head Quarters [Ciby George v. District Collector & Ors.].

Justice Mohammed Nias CP held that in view of the danger posed to residents due to structural issues, there was no option but to order the demolition and reconstruction of towers B and C.

"The distress to the towers is undeniably human-induced, causing significant loss and suffering due to cumulative violations of regulatory, structural, and environmental standards. Continued occupation poses grave risks, necessitating immediate evacuation to ensure community safety. Considering the expert reports, the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the order passed by the District Collector, there is no alternative but to direct AWHO to demolish and reconstruct Towers B and C to prevent casualties and protect lives and properties", the Court said.

The Court directed the Ernakulam District Collector to constitute a committee comprising experts on structural issues, two owners, and other stakeholders. The Committee has been directed to meet within two weeks and decide on how the evacuation will be carried out.

The Committee will also be empowered to make architectural decisions for future construction considering environmental impact and impact on the surrounding communities and to set timelines for evacuation, demolition and reconstruction.

The AWHO was also directed to pay the residents who will be evacuated from towers B and C ₹21,000 and ₹23,000 respectively per month towards rent and other expenses.

The apartments were built solely for serving and retired defence personnel and their dependents. The land measuring 4.25 acre for this project was purchased in 1991. However, the project commenced only in 2014.

The society has 264 apartments in three towers.

Though the project was incomplete, occupation was allowed in 2018.

According to the petitioners, two of the three towers, towers B and C, comprising 208 flats each started to show signs of extreme distress in the first year itself.

Spalling of concrete and falling of building parts have become a regular affair, the petitioners alleged.

In March last year, the Ernakulam district collector ordered retrofitting of the Army Towers after evacuating all residents of the two towers under the supervision of the AWHO.

This prompted the petitioners to move the High Court challenging the order of the district collector seeking directions to reconstruct the towers.

The petitioners also sought compensation from the AWHO and alternative solutions for the issue.

The Court intiitally directed the Indian Institute of Science (IIS), Bangalore, to conduct a structural audit and file a report on the same.

The report clearly mentioned that no retrofitting would be possible with respect to Towers B and C. The report of the IIS was accepted by the AWHO.

The AWHO proposed a plan to refund the cost of construction to the affected flat owners. The plan proposed to pay them between ₹60 and ₹70 lakhs. However, the flat owners refused to accept the proposed terms.

The Court today ordered demolition and reconstruction and directed the Commtitee to be appointed by the district collector to make its decisions based on the suggestions of IISC Bangalore as well.

Judgment copy awaited.

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a report from a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on the authenticity of the certain audio recordings which allegedly point to Manipur Chief Minister (CM) N Biren Singh's role in the communal violence in the State between the Meitei and Kuki communities.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar said it would like to first see the FSL report and then proceed on the plea moved by the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust.

"I do not know the veracity of the transcript also ... when will the FSL report come? File in six weeks. List on March 24. Let FSL report be placed on sealed cover," the Court said.

The Court had initially pondered over whether it should hear the matter directly or let the High Court look into it first.

"The State (Manipur) is limping back now (after witnessing ethnic clashes in 2023 and 2024). We have to also see if this Court should hear this or the High Court should," CJI Khanna said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, submitted that transcripts of the audio recordings have been place on record before the top court. It is clearly said by the Chief Minister that he allowed arms to be looted by one group, before the Manipur riots took place, Bhushan added.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, meanwhile, questioned the petitioner organization's motive behind filing the plea.

"Petitioner has ideological inclinations.. Separatists sorts.. There is a report by the three-judge committee. Only to keep the pot boiling (such petitions are filed)," he said.

Bhushan replied that the non-governmental forensic lab, Truth Labs has confirmed that 93 per cent the voice in the audio recordings is of the Chief Minister.

SG Mehta expressed doubts over the credibility of such a report, whereas Bhushan maintained that the findings by Truth Labs are far more reliable than that of government FSL reports.

The Court proceeded to call for a FSL report as well.

"Let us first see the FSL report," CJI Khanna said.

Notably, during the hearing Justice Sanjay Kumar also disclosed that he had attended a dinner hosted by the Manipur CM, and asked the petitioner whether he should recuse from hearing the case.

"Let me clarify that CM of Manipur had hosted a dinner for me when I was elevated to this court. Tell me if I should hear it," the judge said.

Bhushan replied that the petitioner did not have any objection against Justice Kumar hearing the matter.

The matter will be heard next on March 24.

[Read Live Coverage]

General Counsel do not have the time to read elaborate legal opinions with detailed footnotes and would rather have practical advice from lawyers who have an understanding of business, Head of Baker McKenzie's Asia Pacific Investigations, Compliance & Ethics Group Mini Menon vandePol noted recently.

“I have a client who says if I can’t see the nub of the advice on the front page of my iPhone, then I am not going to read it. This is demand they have. They want commercial, practical legal advice and recommendations with an understanding of their business.”

vandePol was participating in a panel discussion on the topic What Will the Indian Legal Market Look Like in the Next 10 Years?. Her co-panelists included Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Counsel Sharmistha Chakrabarti; Dentons Link Legal (Paris) Partner Joydeep Sengupta, and Founder & Principal of Aikyam Law Offices Daksh Ahluwalia. The session was moderated by Asian Paints General Counsel (GC) Ami Parekh.

The event was organised by General Counsels Association of India (GCAI). It focused on the ongoing demand to grant statutory recognition to GCs, akin to that of practicing advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Sengupta pointed out that India is now the fifth largest economy and is increasingly integrated with the global economy due to its favourable environment. He said,

“When you look at the Indian economy and the number of practising lawyers, GCs are not recognised despite playing an important role.” 

Noting that India’s expanding economy has brought with it an increase in cross-border legal complexities, Ahluwalia emphasised that while India has introduced significant regulatory changes over the past two decades, including the Labour Codes and Data Protection Law, the judicial system remains a bottleneck.

“The judicial system is crumbling, and there are serious issues that must be addressed. Every person who approaches the courts must have faith in the system,” he said.

He also pointed out the lack of certainty in legal outcomes, citing the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) judgment as an example of how legal unpredictability can deter foreign investors. To improve efficiency, he suggested implementing the “loser pays” principle, a system in which the losing party bears the litigation costs.

The panelists agreed that GCs play a critical role in business decision-making, yet they remain under-appreciated in India.

With AI rapidly transforming industries worldwide, its impact on legal services was a key point of discussion. Chakrabarti highlighted the growing role of AI-powered tools like Harvey, which are reshaping the legal profession. However, she reassured legal professionals that AI remains a tool rather than a replacement.

“AI tools have not yet reached a place where they can take over our jobs. Instead, we need to harness AI before it overtakes us,” she said.

vandePol added,

“Legal expertise isn’t going away, but AI will make our workforce leaner.”

Ahluwalia underscored AI’s transformative potential, stating,

“AI won’t replace lawyers, but AI-enabled lawyers will replace those who don’t adapt.”

He noted that drafting legal documents has become significantly easier with AI, allowing legal professionals to focus on more strategic aspects of their work.

Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister of State (in charge) for Law and Justice was the chief guest of the event. He announced that the Advocates Act, 1961, will soon be amended. He said,

“I asked my bureaucrats if it will be detrimental if GCs are statutorily recognised. They had no answer."

The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the heavy case pendency before the Allahabad High Court and observed that immediate steps need to be taken to fill the vacant judge posts [Kamla Bai v. Allahabad High Court and ors].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that each judge of the Allahabad High Court was tasked with deciding about 15-20 thousand cases while the High Court continues working at half capacity.

The Bench made the observation while dealing a plea by a 95-year-old litigant whose case had remained pending before the Allahabad High Court for a long time. She had moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to the High Court so that her second appeal in a civil case was heard at the earliest.

The Bench today opined that it cannot adopt a "pick and choose" policy to direct an out-of-turn hearing for one case, when the Allahabad High Court was already flooded with litigation. There may be many such cases lying in "pathetic condition", the Court noted.

"In last one month, we have come across many petitions whose proceedings have been pending before Allahabad High Court since three decades...It appears that the High Court of Allahabad is flooded with litigation. We are informed each judge is with 15-20 thousand cases. The High Court is working with (79) judges; that means it has vacancy of 50 percent. Litigants are waiting...The only way out is to take steps to fill up vacancies, recommending candidates on merit," Justice JB Pardiwala added.

It proceeded to direct that the litigant's plea be treated as a representation to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice, so that appropriate steps may be taken.

"Let this petition be treated as representation. The Registry shall serve a copy of this order to Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. The Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court shall take appropriate actions in this regard," the Court ordered.

Bar & Bench recently published an article highlighting that the Allahabad High Court was functioning at just under 50% of its sanctioned strength of 160, with only 79 judges (including the Chief Justice) hearing cases.

Despite the alarming pendency of 11,41,687 cases before the High Court as of January 1, 2025, not much has been done to fill these vacancies on a war footing.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium made one recommendation for Advocate Praveen Kumar Giri to be appointed as a judge and his name was approved by the Central government on January 23.

No other recommendations were made despite the awareness of the pendency and shortage of judges. 

[Read Live Coverage]

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the fee paid by Intellectual Property (IP) law firm Remfry & Sagar to a company run by family members of its founder, is a legitimate business expense deductible under the Income Tax Act, 1961. (PCIT v. Remfry Sagar)

A Bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja held,

“We have already found that it was permissible for Dr. Sagar to monetise the goodwill acquired and earned. The goodwill thus represented an asset held by Dr. Sagar and which could have been validly gifted to his children. It was the resultant firm which sought to derive benefit from the goodwill attached to that name. The consideration paid for the use of the same, thus, can neither be said to be for an unlawful purpose or one motivated by the intent to overcome a prohibition raised by law.”

The firm "Remfry & Sagar" has a history dating back to 1827, when it was established as a sole proprietorship by British immigrant Henry Oliver Remfry. In 1973, the entire business, including its assets, name and goodwill, was transferred to Dr V Sagar, a legal practitioner. Sagar acquired the firm and continued its operations under the name "Remfry & Sons."

In 1990, Sagar merged his sole proprietorship practice, "Sagar & Co," with "Remfry & Sons" and renamed the firm "Remfry & Sagar.”

In 2001, Sagar gifted the goodwill associated with "Remfry & Sagar" to a private limited company, Remfry & Sagar Consultants Private Limited (RSCPL), through a registered instrument. RSCPL was substantially owned by Sagar's children, who were not legal practitioners. This transfer was part of Sagar's efforts to institutionalise the firm's goodwill and ensure its continuity.

The 2001 partnership deed outlined the terms under which the new firm, "Remfry & Sagar," would operate.

The partners were permitted to use the name "Remfry & Sagar" and its associated goodwill, which was owned by RSCPL. RSCPL agreed to provide office equipment, facilities and support services to the partnership. The firm agreed to pay RSCPL a license fee equivalent to 25% of the bills raised by it for the use of goodwill and infrastructure.

The dispute centred around whether the license fees paid by the law firm "Remfry & Sagar" to RSCPL for the use of goodwill and associated rights were legitimate business expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially disallowed the deductions, arguing that the arrangement was a "colourable transaction" aimed at diverting funds to the children of Sagar, the original owner of the goodwill. The AO also contended that RSCPL, not being a legal practitioner, could not claim goodwill.

However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] overturned this decision, ruling that the goodwill acquired by Sagar over decades was transferable and could be gifted. The CIT(A) also noted that the license fees had already been taxed in the hands of RSCPL, and disallowing the deduction would result in double taxation.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision, prompting an appeal by the department before the Delhi High Court. 

The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasising that the primary purpose of the expenditure was to utilise the goodwill associated with the name "Remfry & Sagar." It found no evidence that the arrangement was aimed at tax avoidance or violated any legal provisions. 

According to the judgment, a payment for the use of goodwill cannot be considered illegal, and if a business aims to benefit from goodwill, it must compensate the owner. Remfry & Sagar, a well-established law firm, sought to leverage its reputation and name. The agreement to utilise goodwill was legitimate and not a scheme for tax avoidance

“A person would be obliged to part with consideration for the use of goodwill if it seeks to derive benefit and advantage therefrom. Undisputedly, Remfry & Sagar had acquired a reputation and goodwill in the field of legal services. What the respondent assessee thus sought to do was to derive advantage and benefit of association as also the use of a name which carried a reputation in the legal arena.”

On the IT department's contention that revenues from law practice could not be shared with non-lawyers as per Bar Council of India Rules, the Court held that the revenue in this case was only for computation of license fee payable.

“However in the facts of the present case, we find that the reference to a percentage of the revenue earned by the law practise was intended to principally provide for a basis to compute the consideration liable to be paid for use of goodwill and the utilisation of the name. The primary purpose of referring to the total billing of the law firm was to provide a firm, definite and fixed basis to compute the consideration liable to be paid for use of goodwill.”

The Court also pulled up the revenue for questioning the motive of the gift deed.

“We at the outset note that the validity of the gift deed was clearly an unwarranted digression since the primary question which arose for consideration was the validity of the expenditure incurred.”

It thus upheld the ITAT’s ruling and dismissed the appeal.

The IT department was represented by Advocates Indruj Singh Rai, Abhishek Maratha, Sanjeev Menon, Rahul Singh, Anmol Jagga, Nupur Sharma, Parth Semwal, Apoorv Agarwal, Gaurav Singh, Bhanukaran Singh, Muskan Goel, Parithi Kohli and Himanshu Gaur. 

Remfry and Sagar was represented by Senior Advocate Ajay Vohra, with Advocates Aditya Vohra and Shashwat Dhamija.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of key provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 [Rupshi Singh v. Union of India].

A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, saying the petitioner can flag the issue to the parliament.

The petitioner, one Rupshi Singh, challenged Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act.

Section 2 defines dowry while Section 3 penalises giving and taking dowry.

Section 4 penalises demanding dowry.

"The laws are invalid. I am public spirited," the petitioner told the Court.

"Dismissed. Go and tell the parliament," the Bench said.

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted an interim bail for one day to former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and Unnao rape case convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar to enable him undergo a cataract surgery [Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation].

Sengar was allowed medical bail to undergo the eye surgery on February 4.

A Bench of Justice Yashwant Sharma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar directed Sengar to surrender back to the jail authorities on February 5.

The Court had earlier granted temporary bail to Sengar for the surgery to take place on January 24.

However, since the procedure could not take place that day, he surrendered to the jail and then again approached the Court.

Senior Advocate Manish Vashisht today submitted that Sengar would require two extra days for observation after the surgery. However, the Court declined to grant medical bail for more than one day.

Pertinently, today Justice Vikas Mahajan also granted medical bail to Sengar in the custodial death case related to Unnar rape. The bail by single-judge was granted on the same grounds and for the same duration as the division bench.

Today's order would be the third instance of Sengar being released on medical bail.

The Court had initially granted Sengar interim bail on medical grounds till December 20, 2024, for a medical assessment of his condition by AIIMS.

Thereafter, the medical bail was extended by 4 weeks, till January 20 with the observation that no further extension would be granted.

Sengar had surrendered before Tihar Jail authorities on January 20 after expiry of his medical bail.

Sengar was convicted in the Unnao rape case in 2019.

The case involved a minor victim, who was kidnapped and raped between June 11-20, 2017. She was then sold for ₹60,000, after which she was recovered at the Maakhi police station in Unnao. The survivor was then continuously threatened and warned by the police officials against speaking, as instructed by Sengar.

After running from pillar to post, a rape case was registered in 2018. A trial court in Delhi convicted Sengar for the crime and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2019. An appeal against the trial court verdict is pending before the Delhi High Court.