Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: Court Redefines 'Seeing' for Disabled Candidates, Rules on Celebrity Rights and PFI Ban - 2025-10-23

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: Court Redefines 'Seeing' for Disabled Candidates, Rules on Celebrity Rights and PFI Ban

In a week marked by significant pronouncements on fundamental rights, intellectual property, and procedural justice, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment expanding the scope of disability rights in public employment. The Court also adjudicated on high-profile cases involving the protection of celebrity personality rights, the maintainability of a plea challenging the ban on the Popular Front of India (PFI), and issued stern directives on prison administration and judicial delays.

Landmark Ruling on Disability Rights: Court Redefines 'Seeing'

In a profound interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), a division bench in Mudit Gupta v. AAI & Anr. (W.P.(C) 938/2025) ruled that a blind candidate cannot be disqualified from a job post if they can perceive and discharge the required duties, even if the role has a "functional requirement" of seeing. The Court astutely observed, “Can the blind see? Law, however, has a habit of complicating the simplest of issues.”

The case involved petitions against the Airport Authority of India (AAI) for disqualifying blind candidates from the post of Junior Executive (Law), despite the post being identified as suitable for blind or low-vision individuals. The AAI had cited the inability to meet the functional requirement of “seeing.”

The High Court held that the assessment must be expansive, not myopic, stating, “The concept of ‘seeing’, inasmuch as it is stipulated... as a functional attribute, cannot be restricted to the ocular functionality of the eye. If, therefore, despite not being possessed of the ocular ability... a candidate is nonetheless able to perceive what is before him, to the extent it is necessary to discharge the function... he has to be regarded as being possessed of the functional attribute of ‘sight’.”

The Court clarified that once a statutory committee identifies a post as suitable for persons with a particular disability, the employing authority cannot impose a further functional requirement that negates that identification. It mandated that assessments of disabled candidates must occur in an "enabling atmosphere" with necessary aids and assistive devices, setting aside the cancellation of the petitioners' candidature and ordering a re-assessment.

Intellectual Property and Personality Rights in the Spotlight

The High Court was active in the domain of intellectual property, particularly concerning the burgeoning field of personality rights.

• Hrithik Roshan & Kumar Sanu's Personality Rights: In two separate cases, the Court moved to protect the personality rights of actor Hrithik Roshan and singer Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee . In HRITHIK ROSHAN v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS , the Court directed the removal of online links infringing on the actor's rights. Similarly, in KUMAR SANU BHATTACHARJEE v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS , an interim injunction was passed to protect the singer's personality attributes from unauthorized commercial use. These orders reinforce the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the personal brand and identity of public figures.

• Trademark and Patent Disputes: In Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. , the court restrained Alchem International from infringing the 'Alkem' trademark, underscoring the importance of established brand identity. However, in KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V v. M. BATHLA & ANR , the court dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Philips concerning its “Digital Transmission System” patent, demonstrating the high bar for proving patent violation.

Key Rulings in Civil, Criminal, and Constitutional Law

The Court also delivered several other noteworthy judgments impacting various legal spheres.

• PFI Ban Challenge Maintainable: In Popular Front of India v. Union of India , the Court issued notice to the Central Government and held that the PFI's plea challenging the UAPA tribunal's order confirming its five-year ban is maintainable before the High Court, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the ban's validity.

• Relaxation for Transgender Persons in Public Employment: Championing inclusivity, the Court in PRAVEEN SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR directed authorities to decide on providing a 5-year age relaxation and a 5% relaxation in qualifying marks for transgender persons in recruitment for its own establishment, a progressive step towards ensuring equal opportunity.

• Parole and Prison Rules: Taking a strong stance on prisoners' rights, the Court in LALIT @ LUCKY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI slammed authorities for defying prison rules, observing that long incarceration without parole can lead to anarchy. In a related matter, KANTA PRASAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI , the court issued a slew of directions to ensure fair and reasoned decisions on parole and furlough applications.

• Bail Condition Relaxed for Karti Chidambaram: The Court provided relief to Karti P Chidambaram v. CBI by relaxing a bail condition in the INX media case that required him to seek the trial court's permission for foreign travel, streamlining the process for the parliamentarian.

• Shared Household under Domestic Violence Act: In KHUSHWANT KAUR v. SMT GAGANDEEP SIDHU , the court observed that a wife residing in a house immediately after marriage establishes it as a “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act, entitling her to reside there even if the husband is later disowned by his parents.

• Costs on Centre in Sameer Wankhede Case: The Court imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the Central Government in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE for concealing facts in its review plea against a ruling on the promotion of the IRS officer.

Arbitration and Procedural Law

The High Court made crucial clarifications on arbitration law and expressed its exasperation with procedural delays.

• Limitation Period in Arbitration: The Court made two important rulings on limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED versus M/S HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , it held that a trial court cannot revisit the issue of limitation once the High Court has already condoned the delay. In M/S TEFCIL BREWERIES LTD. versus M/S ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT. LTD. , it clarified that correcting a mere typographical error does not extend the limitation period for challenging an award.

• Decrying Delays in Civil Suits: Expressing deep concern over protracted litigation, the Court in Sohn Singh v. Dildar Singh remarked, “It is high time that paradigm be changed by courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades.”

This week’s proceedings at the Delhi High Court underscore its role as a vital interpreter of law, balancing individual rights with state authority, championing inclusivity, and pushing for a more efficient justice delivery system. The rulings, particularly on disability rights and personality rights, are poised to have a lasting impact on legal jurisprudence in India.