Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

“Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Order, Citing ‘Prudence’ in Legal Challenge over DARC Fellowship Disengagement”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a recent judgment delivered on October 3, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, made a significant decision regarding the disengagement of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre (DARC) Fellowship Programme. The court vacated an interim order that had previously restrained the discontinuation of services and directed the payment of stipends to the affected parties.

The judgment, which examined the legal Intricacies surrounding the disengagement, referenced the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023. This ordinance played a pivotal role in the proceedings, as it altered the distribution of powers and authority within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

In its observations, the court emphasized the need for caution when granting interim orders, particularly those that effectively stay actions such as disengagements. The court referred to the prudence required in such situations.

According to the judgment, “Propriety demands that this Court ought not to have passed any interim order which had the effect of staying the Order dated 05.07.2023 and other consequential orders.”

This ruling signifies a critical development in the ongoing legal battle over the engagement of Fellows and Associate Fellows in the DARC and the subsequent disengagement. It underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding the authority and decision-making processes in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

The legal challenge had also referred to various legal provisions, including Article 123 of the Constitution of India, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, and government notifications related to reservations and services. The judgment highlights the intricate legal issues at the heart of the matter.

The decision ultimately provides clarity on the status of the interim order and directs parties involved to approach the Apex Court for further clarification. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving similar legal complexities within the region.

Date of Decision: 03 OCTOBER 2023

 SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS.  vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI &

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/subhashini-ratan-v-legislative-assembly-30Sep23-Del.pdf"]

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:06 AM
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:05 AM
138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court