Delhi High Court Current Affairs - 2019
Category Wise PDF Compilations available at This Link
In a recent judgement the Delhi High court (HC) ruled that United Nations Organization (UNO) is not ‘State’ in terms of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and thus it is not amenable to its jurisdiction under Article 226.
About The Case
- Case: The Delhi HC judgment adjudicated the petition filed concerning immunity enjoyed by UNO under United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947.
- Petitioner: The plea in case is filed by a former UNO employee who was found guilty of misconduct following the findings of Procurement Task Force. He was then convicted by a US Federal Court and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment and 2 years of mandatory probation, was later released and deported to India in May 2014. The petition filed by him claims that due process was not followed in his case.
- Course Followed:
- In November 2018, the petitioner sought permission of Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to initiate a legal action against UNO under section 86 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This section 86 of CPC provides that a foreign State may be sued in any Court once the consent of Central government is obtained.
- The MEA then stated that consent of Union Government was not required to initiate legal suit against UNO as it was not foreign State rather only an International Organization.
- MEA although stated that UNO and its officials enjoyed immunity under United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. It also added that as per Section 2 of Article II of the Schedule of Act, 1947, UNO enjoys immunity from every kind of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has clearly waived its immunity. The same became subject matter of petition filed before the Delhi High Court.
Article 12 of Constitution of India
As per it the ‘States’ in relation to Part III (Fundamental Rights) of Constitution includes Government and Parliament of India (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), Government and Legislature of each of State (Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad), all local (or other) authorities within territory of India or under control of Union of India.
Article 226 of Constitution of India
It empowers the high courts of India to issue orders, directions or writs, which includes writs in nature of habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, and quo warranto (or any of them) to any concerned person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases).
Tags: Article 12 • Article 226 • certiorari • Civil Procedure Code 1908 • Constitution of India • Delhi High Court • Fundamental Rights • habeas corpus • mandamus • Ministry of External Affairs • Part III • prohibition • quo warranto • United Nations Organization • UNO
Zero Pendency Courts Project is the pilot project of the Delhi High Court. The pilot project was undertaken in certain subordinate courts of Delhi to identify benchmarks for different types of cases timelines, number of judges required, case flow management rules and a host of other relevant factors.
The project was also aimed to provide information on the judicial time required to dispose of a case together with the gathering stage wise details in each case.
Findings of the Study
The Zero Pendency Courts Project aimed to study the life cycle of cases to come up with optimal timelines for cases has made the following observations:
- Delhi needs 43 more judges above the current strength of 143 to clear all the pending cases in one year.
- Persisting delays have made the system less credible as litigants have to wait for decades to get their cases resolved.
- As a result of the increase in the number of filings over the years, the pendency of cases is bound to increase if no proper targeted steps are taken to overcome the issue.
- It was estimated that judicial delays cost India around 1.5% of its Gross Domestic Product annually.
- The report identifies the absence of witnesses, unnecessary adjournments sought by the advocates or the parties, lesser number of judges and delay in the service of summons, especially to outstation parties as the reason for the persistent delays in case disposals.
The findings from the pilot project will aid in providing a new understanding required to solve the vexed problem of pendency in the Indian legal system.