Latest news with #D.K.Upadhyaya
The Hindu
16-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
HC seeks Centre, Delhi govt.'s response on traffic violations by e-commerce delivery agents
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre, Delhi government and Delhi Police to respond to a plea alleging traffic violations by e-commerce delivery riders. A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Delhi Transport Department and Commissioner of Delhi Police to file their replies and posted the matter for hearing on October 8. Advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi in his petition alleged 'widespread, continued and unchecked' violations of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules by delivery partners of quick commerce and e-commerce platforms in the Capital. The counsel for the Delhi government informed the court that the government had already introduced a policy for two-wheelers – the Delhi Motor Vehicle Aggregator and Delivery Service Provider Scheme, 2023 – and had notified it on November 21, 2023. The scheme aims to license and regulate aggregators operating in the Delhi region. The court then asked the Delhi government to place on record the policy and for the authorities concerned to provide detailed information about the action taken against the violators. The plea alleged that delivery workers employed or contracted by various platforms routinely use two-wheelers to transport 'oversized, bulky and excessively heavy items,' including industrial toolkits, foldable furniture, and commercial-sized delivery boxes. 'These loads often exceed the permissible dimensions and weight limits under Indian traffic regulations, compromise the stability of vehicles, obstruct the vision of riders and endanger public safety,' it said. 'The continued tolerance of these unsafe delivery practices will create a dangerous precedent that encourages other commercial entities to disregard safety regulations, thereby potentially leading to a complete breakdown of vehicular discipline and road safety standards across Delhi and other urban centers, which would result in irreparable harm to public safety and the rule of law,' the petition said. The plea sought directions for framing and implementing binding regulatory guidelines governing delivery operations in the gig economy. Urbanclap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Urban Company), Zomato Ltd., Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Swiggy), Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. (Ekart/Flipkart), Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. (Domino's), Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. (McDonald's), Kiranakart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Zepto), Innovative Retail Concepts Pvt. Ltd. (Bigbasket) and Smartshift Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Porter) have been made parties to the case.
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- Politics
- 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
09-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi HC declines to order public access to CIC hearings, cites infrastructure issues
ANI 09 Jul 2025, 18:06 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], July 9 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass directions allowing the general public and journalists to attend Central Information Commission (CIC) hearings either physically or virtually, stating that such access would require significant infrastructure and planning. A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal was hearing a petition filed by a group of journalists seeking public and media access to CIC proceedings. The court clarified that, while it supports the idea of open or virtual hearings in principle, implementing such a system is not straightforward. It involves technical complexities and heavy financial investment, particularly when it comes to live streaming or virtual access. Instead of issuing directions, the court advised the petitioners to approach the CIC directly for physical access, pointing out that the Commission already has an internal order on the subject. It requested the CIC to take a timely decision in accordance with legal procedures and inform the petitioners. As for the demand to allow virtual public access, the bench noted that the Supreme Court is already considering the issue. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma also confirmed this during the hearing. (ANI)
The Hindu
02-07-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court asks DGCI to decide on plea against licensing of weight-loss drugs
The Delhi High Court asked the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) to consult experts and relevant stakeholders in deciding a plea over drug combinations sold in the market for weight-loss treatment. A bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the petitioner, Jitendra Chouksey, to give a representation to the DGCI, which was asked to decide the matter within three months. Mr. Chouksey, in his plea, alleged licenses issued for the use and sale of such drugs were not based on adequate data. The court, however, said the plea's concerns have to be first looked into and addressed by the DCGI. It allowed Mr. Chouksey to move the authority and bring relevant material and documents to its notice. Lack of clinical trials The plea raised concerns regarding the manner in which 'Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (RA) drugs, specifically semaglutide, tirzepatide, and liraglutide, have been granted marketing approval in India for use in weight management and aesthetic treatments, despite limited safety data, lack of India-specific clinical trials, and absence of a robust pharmacovigilance or regulatory oversight mechanism.' It claimed that 'numerous studies have further highlighted the significant risks posed by these medications, including pancreatitis, gastrointestinal damage, thyroid and pancreatic cancers, cardiovascular complications, metabolic dysregulation, and optic neuropathy.' The plea said these drugs were originally developed and internationally approved for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, with their primary therapeutic role being the regulation of glycemic levels. 'However, over the past few years, they have been repurposed and approved often through accelerated pathways for obesity treatment and chronic weight management, based largely on short-term efficacy trials,' it added. The plea said, 'In India, the CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation) has recently approved these drugs for weight- loss purposes without requiring large-scale clinical trials specific to Indian demographics or mandating post-marketing surveillance.' Mr. Chouksey said there is no evidence to suggest that these drugs have undergone rigorous safety evaluation within the Indian population. He cautioned that pharmaceutical companies, clinics, and digital wellness platforms are promoting the drug combinations as 'quick-fix' weight-loss solutions.
The Hindu
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court urges Centre to update RTI rules for digital formats
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) directed the Central government to consider amending the existing Right to Information (RTI) Rules to facilitate the provision of information through modern electronic formats such as email, pen drives, or cloud-based platforms. A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the competent authority to take an appropriate decision on the matter within a period of three months. The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Aditya Chauhan, who highlighted that Rule 4(d) of the RTI Rules, 2012 continues to refer to obsolete mediums like diskettes and floppies - devices no longer in practical use due to the absence of compatible hardware - to provide RTI responses. The petition underscored the absurdity of relying on defunct storage formats when technology has since advanced to include pen drives, cloud storage, and secure digital transfers. Mr. Chauhan, in his plea, submitted that he had requested information under the RTI Act to be provided in PDF format via pen drive, but received inconsistent and arbitrary responses from various Public Information Officers (PIOs). He pointed out that several PIOs categorically refused to provide the information in floppy disk or diskette format, citing the unavailability of compatible devices. 'At the same time, when the petitioners suggested the use of a pen drive as a practical alternative, the responses were inconsistent and arbitrary,' the plea stated. According to Mr. Chauhan, 'Some PIOs outright denied the request on the ground that there is no legal provision permitting the use of pen drives; others rejected the request citing vague and unsupported concerns about data integrity or potential virus threats; while a few officials agreed conditionally but demanded excessive and unspecified charges, without any basis in the RTI Act or the RTI Rules.' He further argued that if PIOs impose fees based on personal discretion, it could result in unfair treatment and hardship for RTI applicants. Conversely, he said, not charging any fee could lead to a loss of legitimate revenue for the government. 'This gap in the legal framework highlights the urgent need for updated provisions that clearly define fee structures for providing information through contemporary electronic means, balancing the interests of both RTI applicants and the government,' Mr. Chauhan submitted.
