Latest news with #DKUpadhyay
Hindustan Times
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks Centre reply on plea on Delhi Police's powers over online content
The Delhi high court has sought responses from the Union government and lieutenant governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena on a petition challenging a Central notification that empowers Delhi Police officers to issue takedown orders to social media platforms for removing online content. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Wednesday issued notice to the LG and the Union ministry of electronics and information technology (MEIT) on a plea filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). The matter will be heard next on September 17. The petition pertains to a gazette notification issued on December 26, 2024, through which Saxena authorised at least 23 senior Delhi Police officers to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. This section makes intermediaries — such as Facebook, YouTube, Jio, and Cloudflare — liable for third-party content if they fail to remove unlawful material after being notified by the 'appropriate government' or its agency. According to the notification, officers authorised to issue such notices include DCPs of Delhi's districts, the intelligence fusion and strategic operations (IFSO) unit, economic offences wing, crime branch, special cell, special branch, IGI Airport, Railways and Metro units. These officers can act in cases reported within their jurisdiction and 'notify instances of information, data or communication links' connected to any computer resource used to commit an unlawful act. The notification also designated the joint commissioner of police, IFSO, as the state nodal officer, with the DCP IFSO appointed as assistant state nodal officer. SFLC, represented by advocate Talha Abdul Rehman, argued that empowering police officers to issue unilateral takedown orders without judicial oversight was 'arbitrary' and 'violative of due process'. 'The statutory power to block or remove online content is exclusively vested in the Central Government under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology Rules, 2009. The impugned notification, by granting these powers to the police, oversteps constitutional and statutory boundaries and is, therefore, ultra vires the parent legislation,' the plea said. It further argued that only the Centre has the authority to issue such directives under Section 69A and that the move violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It also contradicts landmark Supreme Court judgments that underscore the importance of legal safeguards and proportionality in actions affecting fundamental rights.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC quashes order on Chandni Chowk panel
The Delhi high court on Thursday directed the Delhi government to withdraw its March 26 order constituting a high-level committee for the maintenance of Chandni Chowk, after the Public Works Department (PWD) admitted the move was based on a 'misreading' of the court's earlier direction issued in February. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed strong displeasure, rebuking the government for forming the committee without court approval. When the matter came up, the bench questioned why the government had not already withdrawn the order despite acknowledging the mistake. 'If this is their attitude... What is all this? It's too much,' the bench remarked. PWD standing counsel Sameer Vashisht told the court that the order was issued with the intent to preserve and restore Chandni Chowk, but that officials had misunderstood the court's February 18 directive, which had only sought suggestions for such a committee. Following submissions, the court directed immediate withdrawal of the March 26 order, stating, 'Accordingly, the order be withdrawn at the earliest.' The matter will be heard next on July 9. The case stems from a petition filed by the Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal, which alleged administrative apathy and sought action against damage, deficiencies, and illegalities within the Chandni Chowk Redevelopment Project — from Subhash Marg to Fatehpuri Masjid, including areas around the metro station. The petitioner claimed the ₹140-crore project was being undermined by poor coordination among government agencies, resulting in public inconvenience. On February 18, the court had indicated its intent to form a committee with officials from the PWD, MCD, and Delhi Police to address these issues. The court had emphasized that Chandni Chowk was not merely a commercial zone but also of 'historical importance,' attracting lakhs of tourists. Despite this, the PWD unilaterally constituted a committee and issued a mandate for it on March 26. On Wednesday, the court had asked the Delhi government to explain how the PWD issued the order without court authorisation, setting the stage for Thursday's directive for immediate withdrawal.
Hindustan Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC raps Delhi PWD for forming Chandni Chowk panel, cites defiance of directive
The Delhi high court on Wednesday took strong exception to the Delhi government's Public Works Department (PWD) for unilaterally constituting a high-level committee to maintain Chandni Chowk, observing that the move was in contravention of the court's earlier directive which had only sought suggestions for such a panel. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the Delhi government's counsel to seek instructions on how the PWD issued the order dated March 26 constituting the committee, even though the court had not authorised it. 'We are astonished to note such an order being passed by the government, that too with the approval of the higher authorities in the government,' the court said in its order. It noted that while the March 26 order acknowledged the court's observations from paragraph 12 of its February 18 directive, it 'completely ignores' paragraph 13, which had made it clear that the respondents were only required to provide suggestions and not constitute the committee themselves. 'We request Mr Sameer Vashisht, learned standing counsel for the government, to seek instructions as to how the order dated 26.03.2025 has been passed, which appears to be in contravention of the order of the Court, dated 18.02.2025,' the bench added. The issue arose from a petition filed by the Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal, which sought immediate steps by city authorities to remove damage, deficiencies, and illegal activities in and around the Chandni Chowk Redevelopment Project — from Subhash Marg (Lal Quila Road) up to Fatehpuri Masjid, including areas near the Chandni Chowk Metro station. The petitioner argued that there was a complete lack of coordination among the authorities, leading to mismanagement and undermining the over ₹140 crore already spent on the project. The plea also highlighted the inconvenience being caused to the public due to the alleged neglect. On February 18, the high court had indicated its intent to constitute a committee comprising senior officials from various agencies, including the PWD, MCD, and Delhi Police. The court had remarked that Chandni Chowk was not just a commercial hub but also of 'historical importance', attracting lakhs of tourists from around the world. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on Thursday.
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Why can't 5G speed be provided at consumer commissions: HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the stand of govt on a PIL seeking to restore video-conferencing hearings and basic facilities in the city's district consumer commissions .The court was hearing a PIL highlighting the dismal state of the consumer courts. The bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked Delhi govt to respond, granting it three weeks to file its to the PIL, once the COVID-19 pandemic ended, the facility for affected parties to appear via video conferencing was no longer available at various consumer fora, even though it is being expanded and improved in other district courtrooms. It sought the restart of the facility at all 10 district consumer commissions for the benefit of consumers who mostly argue their grievances on their plea also cited replies from some district commissions to an RTI filed on the matter, where the commissions blamed the lack of infrastructure and absence of a 5G connection for the absence of the video-conferencing facility. The bench wondered why govt can't provide a 5G connections to the earlier directions by the high court, the authorities were yet to provide basic facilities to lawyers and the public at the consumer commissions, the plea said. Last year, the high court had warned that govt cannot "muzzle" courts in this way, compelling them to approach Supreme Court for getting budgets cleared."The state is only interested in slashing the budgets of courts. We find that there is a deliberate pattern. For everything, we need to go to Supreme Court. There are no ladies' toilets in the consumer forums," the court had said.
Hindustan Times
29-04-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
NRAI appeals Delhi HC's order against automatic levy of service charge
The National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) has moved the Delhi high court challenging a single judge's decision last month against the automatic levy of service charges in restaurants and hotels. The court had held that such a practice imposed an 'extraordinary burden' on consumers without their explicit consent. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday by a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The restaurant body, represented by Dr Lalit Bhasin, contended that the levy of the specifically mentioned service charge on the restaurant's menu card and displayed in the establishment did not constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, since it protects the rights of millions of employees in catering establishments across the country. On March 28, a bench of justice Prathiba M Singh reinforced the guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in 2022, affirming that consumers held the unequivocal right to refuse payment of service charges, irrespective of the quality of service rendered. The appeal said that restaurant owners had the right to fix the price of products by splitting the same under various nomenclatures and the CCPA had no authority to dictate to them about the structuring. NRAI's petition argued that the guidelines issued by CCPA were beyond its jurisdiction. 'The guidelines have sought to interfere with labour management relations and CCPA has acted wholly without justification in describing service charge as unfair trade practice,' the plea stated. In its 131-page ruling, the single-judge bench termed service charge or 'tip' as a voluntary payment by customers and cannot be compulsory or mandatory. Such a charge, justice Singh said, created an unfair pricing structure lacking transparency. Although the court upheld CCPA's guidelines, it granted the authority liberty to change the nomenclature of service charge by naming it 'voluntary contribution' or 'staff contribution.' 'The use of word service charge is misleading as consumers tend to confuse the same with service tax or GST, imposed or collected by the government,' the court said. The judgment arose from legal challenges posed by NRAI and the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) against the CCPA's 2022 guidelines. The ruling has only been challenged by NRAI, but HT has learnt that the FHRAI is also likely to challenge the verdict in a day or two, before the high court's division bench.
