Delhi High Court Ponders Uniform Civil Code, Scrutinizes ED's Actions, and Navigates Complex Riot Cases in Packed Week

New Delhi – In a week marked by significant judicial observations and crucial rulings, the Delhi High Court tackled a wide spectrum of legal issues, from the constitutional debate surrounding a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to the procedural intricacies of money laundering investigations and the lingering legal battles from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The Court's pronouncements have set important precedents in areas including criminal law, intellectual property, arbitration, and administrative action, reflecting its dynamic role in shaping contemporary Indian jurisprudence.

A Renewed Call for Uniform Civil Code

Perhaps the most resonant observation of the week came from a bench flagging the persistent conflicts between Islamic personal law and Indian statutory law concerning child marriages. While dealing with a case involving a minor girl who had married consensually, the Court remarked, “Is it not the time to move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?” The query, raised in HAMID RAZA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1189) , underscores the judiciary's growing concern over legal pluralism creating complexities and potential injustices, particularly in the context of protecting minors. This observation re-ignites a long-standing constitutional debate, signaling the judiciary's willingness to prompt legislative contemplation on a sensitive and pivotal national issue.

Scrutiny of Enforcement Directorate's Powers and Procedures

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) found its actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) under intense judicial scrutiny in several key cases. In a significant ruling, VIPIN YADAV v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1203) , the Court granted bail to three accused, criticizing the ED's "manifestly arbitrary" approach of not arresting the main accused who allegedly had a graver role in the offence. This decision highlights the Court's commitment to ensuring that investigative agencies apply the stringent provisions of PMLA fairly and consistently, without selective application that could undermine the principles of justice.

Further defining the procedural boundaries of the PMLA, the Court in ANIRUDH PRATAP AGARWAL v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1199) clarified that the confirmation of property attachment under Section 8(3) does not automatically authorize its retention. A valid order under Section 20 is a prerequisite, thereby reinforcing the procedural safeguards available to an accused against indefinite seizure of property.

In another PMLA-related matter, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR v. M/S VIKAS WSP LTD & ORS (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1191) , the Court held that the Supreme Court's suo motu directions extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic apply to the adjudication process under Section 8 of the PMLA. This ruling provides crucial clarity on the applicability of pandemic-era reliefs to specialized statutes, ensuring that procedural timelines are interpreted in a manner that upholds fairness. The Court also provided a nuanced interpretation in ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. STATE & ORS (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1173) , observing that defrauded money is not taxable income but rather constitutes "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA, thereby delineating the jurisdictions of tax authorities and the ED.

Delhi Riots Cases: Bail Denied, Procedural Pleas Rejected

The legal aftermath of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots continued to feature prominently. The Court denied regular bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councillor Tahir Hussain in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma, a high-profile case from the riots ( Tahir Hussain v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1188) . This decision signals the Court's stringent approach to bail in cases involving serious allegations of violence and conspiracy.

In a related development, the Court rejected a plea by student activist Devangana Kalita to reconstruct case diaries in a riots case but allowed her request for their preservation ( DEVANGANA KALITA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1161) . The ruling balances the accused's right to a fair trial, which necessitates access to crucial documents, with the practical limitations and established procedures of criminal investigation.

Arbitration, RERA, and Commercial Disputes: Navigating Parallel Remedies

The interplay between specialized tribunals and arbitration remained a key focus. In HARMEET SINGH KAPOOR & ANR. versus M/S NEO DEVELOPERS PVT LTD (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1159) , a division bench held that commercial unit buyers are not barred from seeking arbitration even after availing remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), provided circumstances have changed. This judgment affirms the availability of parallel remedies and prevents the doctrine of election of remedies from being applied rigidly to the detriment of aggrieved parties.

Conversely, in Chand Mehra & Anr. v. British Airways PLC (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1167) , the Court clarified the scope of 'commercial dispute'. It ruled that a passenger's dispute with an airline over a ticket refund does not qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, thereby preventing its escalation to a specialized commercial court and ensuring jurisdictional propriety.

Key Rulings on Governance, Civil Rights, and Defamation

Several other notable judgments underscored the Court's role as a guardian of civil rights and a regulator of administrative action.

• Recruitment and Public Employment: In a significant verdict impacting public sector recruitment, the Court quashed a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) notification that made CLAT-PG scores a mandatory criterion for hiring lawyers ( Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1175) . The decision champions meritocracy and questions the rationale of using an academic entrance exam score as a sole filter for professional employment.

• Privacy in GST Proceedings: Upholding the fundamental right to privacy, the Court in Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1160) directed that CCTV footage of an assessee's family, captured during a GST search, cannot be used or disseminated, setting a crucial precedent for protecting personal privacy during tax investigations.

• Rights of Disabled Students: Emphasizing inclusivity, the Court ruled that private schools are bound by the obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and must provide "reasonable accommodation" to disabled students ( G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL v. AADRITI PATHAK & ANR, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1168) .

• Defamation and Free Speech: The Court continued to balance the right to free speech with the right to reputation. It awarded Rs. 5 Lakh in damages to TV Today Network over defamatory tweets against anchor Rajdeep Sardesai ( TV Today v. Anurag Srivastava & And, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1190) and ordered the takedown of social media posts concerning BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia ( Gaura Bhatia v. Samajwadi party Media Cell & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1193) , reinforcing that freedom of expression does not extend to baseless and malicious attacks.

• Matrimonial Law and Cruelty: The Court dissolved a marriage on grounds of cruelty, ruling that a wife's repeated absence from the matrimonial home, coupled with the filing of multiple complaints against the husband and his family, met the threshold for cruelty ( X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1171) .

In a week of far-reaching decisions, the Delhi High Court has once again demonstrated its pivotal role in interpreting the law, holding state actors accountable, and navigating the complex intersections of personal liberty, public order, and constitutional principles. Its pronouncements continue to provide vital guidance for legal practitioners and shape the trajectory of Indian law.