Karkardooma court lawyers end hunger strike over shifting 34 digital cheque bounce courts after ‘assurance and request' from Delhi HC
For a week, the lawyers in the court complex situated in Northeast Delhi had been abstaining from work as part of the protest. After the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi held a meeting with Chief Justice Upadhyaya, the trial court lawyers finally decided to call off their strike.
'The Chief Justice took stock of the situation, requested the Members of the Karkardooma Bar to resume the work forthwith and further assured that all issues and concerns relating to functioning of Digital Courts shall be addressed at the earliest by the High Court at the institutional level,' a circular dated July 7 by Delhi High Court Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj reads.
'…the Chief Justice also conveyed to the Coordination Committee that he fully understands the situation and will take all possible steps to ensure that all courts function smoothly,' the circular stated.
Shortly afterwards, the secretary of the Shahdara Bar Association (SBA), advocate Narveer Dabas, issued a notice. 'In view of the written assurance & request of Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, (Copy Annexed), it has been unanimously resolved by the Executive Committee of Shahdara Bar Association (Regd)., that all members of SBA (Regd.) shall resume their work from 08.07.2025,' it read.
Of the 34 courtrooms whose judges had been shifted, nine are from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma Court, four from Rohini, and three from Patiala House Court. While the judges of the respective courtrooms were shifted to Rouse Avenue Court, the court staff (readers, ahlmads and stenographers), who ensure the functioning of the court, continue to operate from their respective districts.
Rooms have been allotted to these judges on the seventh floor of the Rouse Avenue court complex in Central Delhi. The Delhi High Court, which was behind this move, had cited 'optimal utilisation of available infrastructure and resources' and 'inadequate space' to justify the shift of judges of digital cheque bounce courts in a May 30 notification.
'The remaining arrangement, including support staff deployment and recording of evidence from the respective District Court Complexes, shall continue as per the previous directions/practice until adequate and permanent space is made available in the District Courts concerned to which these Digital NI Act Courts ultimately belong,' the high court notification had stated.
The move did not sit well with the Karkardooma Court lawyers and other trial court lawyers, who had flagged confusion in recording evidence, lack of virtual facilities and connectivity issues as their main problems.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi High Court reduces convict's jail term from 30 to 20 years in rape case
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reduced the 30-year jail term handed to a man convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, cutting it down to 20 years after considering his good conduct in prison. Justice Amit Sharma, in an order dated July 11, noted that the man had been in custody since April 6, 2015, and had served as a safai sahayak (cleaning assistant) while maintaining an overall satisfactory jail record. 'The trial court while sentencing the present appellant for a period of 30 years under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n) of the IPC has recorded that the offence committed by the appellant was heinous in nature and, therefore, the sentence awarded was justified. There is no doubt that the offence committed by the present appellant is extremely grave,' the Court observed, while allowing partial modification of the sentence. The man had approached the High Court challenging the 2013 judgment of the trial court that found him guilty of repeatedly raping a minor girl, who lived in his neighbourhood. The incident came to light when the girl, along with her mother, approached police on April 4, 2015. The girl told police that in December 2014, when no one else was home, the accused came to her house, offered her food, showed her obscene images on his phone and sexually assaulted her. She also alleged that he slapped and threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the abuse. Later, when the minor experienced stomach pain, her mother took her to a doctor. Medical examination revealed she was pregnant. Doctors advised a medical termination of pregnancy. DNA samples were collected and sent to the forensic science laboratory. Following investigation, the man was convicted under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of a minor), Section 450 (house trespass), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. He was also held guilty under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, relating to penetrative sexual assault. However, he was acquitted of the charge of sexual harassment.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
PFI's plea against ban not maintainable: Centre
The Centre on Monday (July 14, 2025) objected to the maintainability of Popular Front of India's (PFI) plea against an order upholding the five-year ban imposed on it by the government. The Centre informed a bench of the Delhi High Court which included Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that the petition was not maintainable as the tribunal was headed by a sitting high court judge and therefore the order couldn't be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 'I have a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. The remedy under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not available. The only remedy available is under Article 136 of the Constitution,' said Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju. Mr. Raju added, 'The tribunal was manned by a sitting judge of this high court and a high court judge is not subordinate to this court. Article 227 applies to subordinate courts'. The PFI counsel claimed the issue was with a division bench of the Delhi High Court in a previous case and the petition was therefore maintainable. The court posted the hearing for August 7. The PFI challenged the March 21, 2024 order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act tribunal confirming the decision by the Centre on September 27, 2022. The court is yet to issue formal notice in the matter. The Centre banned the PFI for five years for its alleged links with global terrorist organisations, such as ISIS, and trying to spread communal hatred in the country.
India Gazette
3 hours ago
- India Gazette
Appeal filed by Maulana Arshad Madani before IB Ministry seeking halt of 'Udaipur Files'
New Delhi [India], July 15 (ANI): A petition was filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani before the Delhi High Court seeking a ban on the Hindi movie 'Udaipur Files', which is based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur. The film was scheduled to be released on July 11. A day before its release, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' till the Centre decides the revision plea of the petitioners, including that of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President challenging the grant of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification. Following the High Court's direction to file an appeal regarding the stay on the screening and reconsideration of the certificate issued by the Censor Board, Maulana Arshad Madani's lawyers on Monday submitted an appeal before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is expected that the Ministry may hold a hearing on this application in the coming days. Meanwhile, the film's producer, Amit Jani has challenged the Delhi High Court's decision in Supreme Court of India. On the request of the film producer's lawyer, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi assured that the petition will be heard. Maulana Arshad Madani also filed a caveat in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, will represent Maulana Arshad Madani in Supreme Court. In the petition submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on behalf of Maulana Arshad Madani, it has been stated that films like 'Udaipur Files' promote division within society and that the promotion of such a film will tarnish India's image globally. The petition further states that Hindus and Muslims have lived together peacefully in our country for centuries, and therefore, the screening of such films could pose a serious threat to communal harmony. It is emphasized that the entire film is based on hatred, and its exhibition could disturb the peace and harmony of the nation. The Government of India has also been reminded that in the past, India faced international embarrassment and condemnation due to the remarks made by Nupur Sharma. At that time, the Government of India had issued a diplomatic statement affirming that India respects all religions and communities and removed Nupur Sharma from her position as spokesperson as a consequence of her remarks. It was due to these actions that some of the mistrust toward India on international platforms was reduced, and the country's image saw a relative improvement. The Government of India has also been informed that the past and present conduct of the filmmaker, Amit Jani, is filled with instances of incitement and disruptive behavior. Secondly, the film presents fabricated content that has no connection with reality. It also depicts the character of Nupur Sharma, whose controversial statement sparked nationwide protests and international outcry. The petition further states that despite the removal of 55 scenes, the film still appears largely unchanged. It is argued that the promotion of this film could incite violence in the country. The petition emphasizes that this film is not in the national interest, and therefore, the certificate granted for its screening should be revoked. As per the Delhi High Court's directive, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting must hear Maulana Arshad Madani's appeal and deliver a decision within one week. In the meantime, the ban on the film's release will remain in effect. (ANI)
