Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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