Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: Key Judgments on Surrogacy, Disability Rights, and Corporate Liability

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court delivered a series of significant judgments this past week, touching upon a wide spectrum of legal domains from constitutional rights and criminal jurisprudence to corporate and arbitration law. The rulings provided crucial interpretations on the Surrogacy Act, reinforced protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and clarified the scope of corporate liability in defamation cases. Other notable decisions involved contempt of court, the finality of arbitral awards, and the evidential requirements in narcotics cases.

---

Constitutional and Social Justice Rulings

In a week marked by socially impactful decisions, the High Court demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding constitutional rights and social justice, particularly in the realms of surrogacy, disability rights, and gender equality.

A Compassionate Interpretation of Surrogacy Age Limits

In a landmark decision in TAPAS KUMAR MALLICK & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR , the Court adopted a compassionate approach to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. It permitted an intending couple to proceed with surrogacy even though the husband exceeded the maximum age limit of 55 years prescribed by the Act. This ruling underscores a judicial trend towards interpreting statutory provisions in a manner that advances reproductive autonomy and the right to parenthood, especially for couples who may have initiated the process before the stringent new regulations came into force.

Upholding the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Court sent a powerful message on the implementation of disability rights in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS v. AMIT KUMAR & ORS . It ruled unequivocally that rejecting a physically disabled individual's job application on the grounds of "no vacancy" for their category is a direct violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent of the Act is to ensure inclusion and equal opportunity, not to be defeated by administrative apathy or procedural excuses. The court stated,

"Rejecting a physically disabled individual's candidature citing no vacancy for such individuals defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016." This decision serves as a stern reminder to government bodies and employers to proactively implement reservation policies and ensure fair consideration for all candidates.

Condemning Sex Determination and Protecting Senior Citizens

Reinforcing societal values, the court in BHUPENDER SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI made a poignant observation on the grave implications of sex determination. It remarked that "the practice of sex determination undermines value of female life and strikes at the hope of a discrimination free society."

In a separate matter, X v. Y , the court balanced the rights of a daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act with the rights of senior citizens. It observed that while a daughter-in-law's residential rights must be protected, the in-laws' right to live peacefully in their own home cannot be suspended indefinitely, highlighting the need for courts to find equitable solutions in complex family disputes.

---

Key Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure

The High Court's criminal benches addressed several intricate questions of law, from the essentials of an offence under the SC/ST Act to the evidentiary value in narcotics cases and the limits of double jeopardy.

"Public View" Under the SC/ST Act

In VIRENDER SINGH BIDHURI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR , the court provided a crucial interpretation of the term "public view" under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It held that assaulting a woman and hurling casteist slurs at her on a flyover squarely falls within the ambit of "public view," even if the only witnesses are the victim's companions. This interpretation broadens the protective scope of the Act, ensuring that caste-based atrocities committed in semi-public spaces do not escape legal scrutiny.

Evidentiary Standards in NDPS and POCSO Cases

The court issued two important rulings clarifying evidentiary standards. In STANLEY CHIMEIZI ALASONYE @UKA CHUKWU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI , it was held that the absence of videography during a search and seizure operation under the NDPS Act does not automatically discredit the police's version of events. This places the onus on the defense to prove malfeasance rather than relying on procedural gaps. Conversely, in STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. TAUHID KHAN @ SHAHID @ LAMBA & ORS , the court affirmed that recovery of a contraband cannot be attributed to an accused without proof of possession or corroboration from independent witnesses, reinforcing a fundamental safeguard against false implication.

In a POCSO Act case, JAI MANGAL MEHTO v. STATE (GOVT. N.C.T. OF DELHI) , the court ruled that a minor victim changing her clothes before a medical examination does not weaken the prosecution's case, a practical clarification that prevents procedural technicalities from derailing justice for survivors.

Double Jeopardy and Contempt Proceedings

The principle against double jeopardy was upheld in Subhash Pahwa @ Subhash Chander v. State NCT of Delhi , where the court ruled that a plea of guilt does not erase this protection, and a second prosecution for the same offence is barred.

The Court also took a firm stance on maintaining judicial decorum. In COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. NITIN BANSAL , it sentenced a man to one month in jail for threatening a court-appointed Local Commissioner with a pistol. However, in another case, COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. HARESH SINGH, ADVOCATE , it discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case after he misbehaved with a woman judge, suggesting a nuanced approach based on the specifics of each case.

---

Rulings on Corporate, Commercial, and Arbitration Law

The commercial and corporate benches of the High Court delivered several judgments with significant implications for businesses, financial institutions, and the arbitration landscape.

Banks Cannot be Held Liable for Defamation

In a major relief for the banking sector, the court held in P S JAYAKUMAR & ANR v. STATE (NCT of Delhi) & ANR that banks, as corporate entities, cannot be summoned as accused in defamation cases. The reasoning was anchored in the principle of mens rea , with the court stating that a bank "lack[s] the state of mind or mens rea necessary to constitute the offence." This judgment provides much-needed clarity on corporate criminal liability and is likely to be cited widely in similar proceedings.

Dishonour of Cheques Issued to a Dissolved Company

The court clarified a key aspect of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Mr Krishan Lal Gulati & Anr. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. It ruled that a party cannot be sued for cheque dishonour under Section 138 if the cheque was presented by a company that had already been dissolved. This decision highlights the importance of the legal status of the complainant at the time of presenting the instrument.

Navigating the Arbitration Maze

The High Court handed down multiple critical decisions concerning arbitration law. In Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS) , it was held that an arbitral award passed after the arbitrator's mandate has expired is unenforceable, and courts lack the power to retroactively extend the mandate. Furthermore, in Mecwel Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. , the court clarified that an order terminating arbitral proceedings for non-filing of a statement of claim is not an "arbitral award" and thus cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These rulings reinforce the procedural sanctity and timelines crucial to the arbitral process.

This past week at the Delhi High Court was a testament to the judiciary's role in navigating complex legal terrains, balancing individual rights with public interest, and shaping the legal frameworks that govern society and commerce.