Delhi High Court Tackles BNSS Validity, PM's Degree Row, and Gender Equality in Armed Forces

New Delhi - The final week of August 2025 saw the Delhi High Court deliver a series of consequential judgments spanning a wide spectrum of legal domains. In a week marked by significant rulings, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of a key provision in the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), set aside a directive for the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's university degree, and championed gender equality by striking down 'men-only' reservations for pilots in the Indian Air Force. The period from August 25 to August 31 also brought critical observations on trademark law, domestic violence, and anti-terror legislation, providing vital updates for the legal fraternity.

Constitutional and Administrative Law Highlights

Upholding Vires of BNSS Section 193(9) on Further Investigation

In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for criminal procedure under the new legal framework, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the case of YASH MISHRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS , the Court rejected the contention that the provision, which pertains to further investigation, acts as a "camouflage" to subvert an accused's indefeasible right to default bail. The judgment provides crucial judicial affirmation for the new code, clarifying the balance between investigative powers and the statutory rights of the accused.

PM Modi's Degree: CIC Order Quashed

A long-standing legal battle concluded as Justice Sachin Datta set aside a 2017 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that had directed the University of Delhi to disclose information regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree. In University of Delhi v. Neeraj and other connected matters , the Court allowed the University's plea, which had been stayed since January 2017. The judgment delves into the nuances of the Right to Information Act, particularly concerning privacy and the disclosure of student records.

A Blow for Gender Equality in the Air Force

In a powerful statement for gender equality, the Court, in MS. ARCHANA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS , found 'men-only' reservation for flying posts in the Air Force to be unjustified. Directing the Central Government to appoint an eligible woman candidate, the bench observed, "we are no longer in the times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates for entering into the Armed Forces." This ruling is a significant step towards dismantling gender-based barriers in combat roles within the military.

Key Rulings in Criminal Law and Procedure

The High Court's criminal benches were active, delivering several important clarifications on bail jurisprudence and the interpretation of penal provisions.

• UAPA Bail Denied: In Lakhveer Singh v. NIA , bail was denied to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly supplying weapons to the 'Bambiha' gang. The Court found no illegality in the arrest, reinforcing the stringent standards for granting bail under anti-terror laws.
• No Default Bail for FSL Delay: Reiterating its established position, the Court in Rahimullah Rahimi v. State NCT of Delhi held that the non-filing of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report along with the initial chargesheet in an NDPS case does not entitle the accused to default bail.
• Gang Rape Conviction of Single Accused: The Court clarified a crucial point of law in Praveen @ Lallu v. State NCT of Delhi , holding that a single person can be convicted for gang rape under Section 376DA IPC (now Section 70 BNS) if the co-accused could not be apprehended or tried.
• Domestic Violence and Intent to Kill: Taking a stern view, the bench in SUSHANT RAJ v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ruled that domestic violence offences involving an intention to kill must be viewed with utmost seriousness and that a marital relationship cannot be considered a mitigating factor in such grave cases.

Developments in Family and Matrimonial Law

The Court delivered nuanced judgments concerning the rights and responsibilities within familial relationships, offering clarity on maintenance, domestic violence, and divorce proceedings.

A significant ruling in X v. Y clarified the scope of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that a woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 is a protective measure and "cannot act as a sword to create proprietary rights."

In a maintenance case, Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona & Anr. , the Court recognized the practical financial burdens on a husband, ruling that obligations like a home loan and responsibility towards parents can be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance for the wife and child.

Furthermore, in Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & Anr , the Court underscored a procedural mandate, holding that it is mandatory to implead the alleged paramour when seeking a divorce on the grounds of adultery.

Intellectual Property and Commercial Law Insights

The Court continued to reinforce robust protections for intellectual property rights while also interpreting statutory defences for trademark use.

• Protection for 'TATA PAY' and 'BURGER KING': The Court granted a John Doe order with a dynamic injunction to protect the 'Tata Pay' trademark in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. John Doe . Similarly, in Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors , it blocked fraudulent websites illegally using the fast-food giant's trademark.
• Use of One's Own Name as a Trademark: In a pair of related cases, Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP , the Court delivered a critical interpretation of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. It held that an injunction cannot be granted against a defendant using their own name as a trademark, even in cases of passing off. It further clarified that the protection is not restricted to the use of the defendant's full name.

Tax and Customs Jurisprudence

Tax practitioners received important guidance on GST and Income Tax matters.

• GST Department's Investigative Powers Limited: In Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors. , the Court made it clear that the GST Department cannot probe allegations of a trader's GSTIN being misused by a third party, stating such power lies with the Economic Offences Wing.
• Conditions for Withholding GST Refund: The Court, in Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr. , ruled that the department cannot invoke Section 54(11) of the CGST Act to withhold a refund unless an appeal has actually been filed against the refund order.
• TDS on Common Area Maintenance Charges: Providing relief to commercial tenants, the Court held in Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds-01 v. Diamond Tree that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by a showroom to a mall do not qualify as 'rent' and are therefore not liable for TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act.

This weekly round-up demonstrates the Delhi High Court's continued engagement with complex and contemporary legal issues. The judgments from this week not only resolve individual disputes but also set down guiding principles that will influence legal practice and judicial interpretation across the country.