Lawyers to boycott judicial work on June 9 in protest against digital courts shift
The move comes after Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on Friday inaugurated 34 digital courts, aimed at reducing paperwork and improving speed as well as efficiency. The courts are dedicated to handling cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mostly deals with cheque bounce cases.
These digital courts include nine from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma Court, four from Rohini and three from Patiala House.
In what it described as 'unrest' among the lawyers, the Coordination Committee of all districts court bar associations of Delhi passed a resolution on Friday.
'Coordination Committee has resolved to abstain from judicial work in all Delhi District Courts on Monday, June 9, 2025,' stated the circular.
The Aam Aadmi Party government approved the construction of a new district court complex at Rouse Avenue in August 2024 at an estimated cost of ₹427 crore, aimed at streamlining judicial processes and improving accessibility.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
HC asks Centre to respond to AAP's plea seeking relief from rent
The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond to a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) against the demand for rent for its party office in Vithalbhai Patel House. The notice was issued in response to a fresh petition in an ongoing case based on the party's challenge to the Centre's decision cancelling the allotment of a suite in the residential-cum-office complex to AAP. The court directed the authorities to file their response within two weeks and posted the matter for July 22. AAP told the court that the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, cancelled the allotment of a suite on September 14, 2024 and that the party was informed about the decision on January 17 this year. AAP has contended that the decision was made without prior notice, and even after it vacated the office on April 30 this year, it was illegally charged ₹8 lakh as rent. After AAP's counsel urged the court to stay a reminder notice on June 20 demanding the rent, the Centre's lawyer said the matter was not urgent as only a notice had been issued. The Centre assured the court that it would proceed in line with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
India Gazette
8 hours ago
- India Gazette
Plea in Delhi HC to halt release of 'Udaipur Files' over allegations of promoting communal hatred
New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to halt the release of the Bollywood film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly inspired by the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan's Udaipur. Filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, the petition alleges that the film may incite communal discord and threaten social harmony. The petition cites the film's trailer, released on June 26, 2025, as containing inflammatory material. It includes alleged references to controversial remarks made by suspended political leader Nupur Sharma and portrays a current Chief Minister in a biased light. According to the petitioner, such elements could rekindle communal tensions reminiscent of 2022. The petition asserts that the trailer distorts the facts of the 2022 murder, implying a conspiracy involving religious figures and institutions, whereas the actual perpetrators were two individuals with extremist motives. The film is accused of portraying Deoband as a hub of radicalism and casting Islamic scholars in a negative role, an act the petitioner says threatens the dignity and safety of the community. The petition claims that Udaipur Files violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard equality, protection from discrimination, and the right to a dignified life. It argues that artistic freedom cannot be used as a cover for spreading hate or polarizing society, warning that the film undermines India's secular values. The plea further objects to references in the film to unresolved legal disputes, such as the Gyanvapi Mosque case. It warns that dramatizing sensitive topics under litigation could be tantamount to contempt of court and fuel social unrest. The petition filed under Article 226 has also been lodged in the High Courts in Maharashtra and Gujarat. It names the Union Government, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), production houses and X Corps as parties to the case. The CBFC's decision to certify the film is being challenged as allegedly violating the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and related guidelines. Public Statements from Maulana Madani condemned the film as a calculated attempt to malign a religious community and weaken the nation's secular framework. He criticized the CBFC for allegedly failing its regulatory responsibilities and enabling divisive forces. He emphasised that the trailer includes deeply offensive content, especially relating to Prophet Muhammad and his wives, that mirrors previous controversies that sparked national and global outrage. Madani concluded by asserting that the right to free speech must not be misused to inflame religious sentiments. Legal steps, he stated, have been taken to hold both the film's creators and certifying authorities accountable. (ANI)
