List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Prateek Jalan deprecated the practice of filing petitions without jurisdiction and warned that costs may be imposed even at the withdrawal stage. The Court dismissed a plea by Meenakshi Tyagi against AIIMS, stressing that such filings waste judicial time and burden litigants. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (2025) ? 

• The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, instituted writ proceedings against the Union of India and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) before the Delhi High Court. 
• The petitioner challenged an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by AIIMS and sought a direction from the Court to permit her to continue in service at AIIMS. 
• The petitioner had previously approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing Original Application No. 2625/2025 seeking identical relief in respect of the same subject matter. 
• The order dated 01.09.2025, which forms the subject matter of the present writ petition, was passed by AIIMS pursuant to a direction issued by the Tribunal on 28.07.2025, whereby the Tribunal directed that the matter be treated as a representation to AIIMS. 
• The Registry of the Delhi High Court had brought to the petitioner's notice that the matter ought to have been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, given that AIIMS is a notified entity falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 
• Notwithstanding the Registry's objection, the petitioner filed an application (CM APPL. 61597/2025) seeking listing of the matter without addressing the issue of maintainability before the High Court. 
• The petitioner contended in the said application that the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 gave rise to a fresh and independent cause of action, thereby justifying the filing of the writ petition before the High Court. 
• The fundamental issue that arose for consideration was whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition directly before the Delhi High Court in respect of a service matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• 1. Tribunal's Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Service Matters 
• The Court observed that AIIMS is a notified entity for the purposes of the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction, and consequently, matters concerning service disputes arising from AIIMS fall squarely within the Tribunal's adjudicatory domain. 
• 2. Settled Legal Position on Tribunal Jurisdiction 
• The Court noted that the legal position established by the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] admits of no doubt. In cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is impermissible for a litigant to approach the writ Court at the first instance, save where the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is under challenge. 
• 3. Persistent Violation Despite Clear Precedents 
• The Court expressed concern that, despite categorical pronouncements by the Supreme Court and coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court in Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6939] and Manish Kumar v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine Del 1519], the Court continues to be confronted with several petitions each week wherein the jurisdictional position is known to counsel, yet the writ petition is nonetheless pressed before the High Court. 
• 4. Deprecation of Misuse of Urgency 
• The Court deprecated the practice whereby it is argued that the relief sought is urgent, and a last-minute effort is made to persuade the Court to exercise jurisdiction, notwithstanding the clear jurisdictional bar. Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant's interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court. 
• 5. Warning of Costs as Deterrent Measure 
• The Court was compelled to observe that it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition, as a deterrent measure to discourage forum shopping and ensure adherence to jurisdictional propriety. 
• 6. Direction to Bar Association 
• The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the President and Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association before the Court commences the practice of imposition of costs in such cases, thereby putting the Bar on notice of the intended course of action. 
• 7. Dismissal with Liberty to Approach Proper Forum 
• The Court dismissed the writ petition, alongwith pending applications, as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, reiterating that matters falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction must be agitated before the Tribunal as the court of first instance. 

What is Jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code,1908 ? 

• Jurisdiction in Civil Courts 
  • Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and determine a case. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, jurisdiction is governed by multiple provisions that define the scope and limits of judicial power. 
• Section 9 CPC: Foundation of Civil Jurisdiction 
  • Section 9 CPC establishes that courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except those where cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.  
  • This provision forms the foundation of civil court jurisdiction and includes two explanations: firstly, suits concerning rights to property or office are civil in nature even when dependent on religious rites; secondly, the presence or absence of fees attached to an office is immaterial for determining civil nature. 

What are the different types of jurisdiction recognized under CPC? 

• Territorial Jurisdiction (Sections 16-20 CPC):  
  • This determines the geographical limits within which a court can exercise authority.  
  • Section 16 mandates that suits concerning immovable property must be instituted where the property is situated.  
  • Section 17 addresses properties situated across different jurisdictions, permitting filing in any court where a portion of the property lies. Section 18 handles uncertain jurisdictional boundaries. Section 19 governs suits for wrongs to persons or movable property, allowing filing either where the wrong occurred or where the defendant resides.  
  • Section 20 is the residuary provision covering other suits, requiring filing where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. 
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 15 CPC): 
  •  This relates to the monetary value of the suit. Section 15 stipulates that suits must be instituted in courts of the lowest grade competent to try them based on the value of the subject matter. 
• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:  
  • This concerns a court's competence to hear specific types of cases as prescribed by law. Certain matters may be exclusively assigned to specialised tribunals or courts. 
• Objections to Jurisdiction (Section 21 CPC):  
  • Section 21(1) provides that objections regarding place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court, and appellate or revisional courts shall not allow such objections unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.  
  • Section 21(2) and (3) extend similar principles to pecuniary jurisdiction and executing court jurisdiction respectively. 
• Section 21A bars suits challenging decree validity on grounds of improper place of suing, preventing collateral attacks on jurisdiction. 

Cases Referred  

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)  
  • The seven-Judge Bench held that litigants cannot approach writ courts directly in matters within the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction, except when challenging the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 itself. 
• Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India (2024) 
  • The Division Bench held that matters falling within Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act must be agitated before the Tribunal as the court of first instance.  
  • Litigants are completely proscribed from approaching the High Court without first approaching the Tribunal. The Court noted that direct filing in High Courts was reaching endemic proportions despite three decades having passed since L. Chandra Kumar. 
• Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2025 ) 
  • The Division Bench clarified that "service matters" under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act include matters relating to conditions of service. Where a litigant has a personal interest affecting their conditions of service, the dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 and must be filed before the Tribunal, not the High Court. 

Source: Delhi High Court     

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Tejas Karia issued an interim order protecting Telugu actor Nagarjuna Akkineni’s personality rights, restraining misuse of his name, image, or voice, including via AI and deepfakes. The Court also directed websites and authorities to block the offending URLs to prevent harm to his reputation and economic interests. 

• The Delhi High Court  held this in the matter of Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors (2025)? 

• Akkineni Nagarjuna, the Plaintiff, is a 65-year-old Indian citizen residing in Hyderabad, Telangana, and stands as one of the most respected and celebrated actors in Indian cinema. With a career spanning over four decades and featuring in more than 95 feature films, he has established himself as a revered veteran of South Indian cinema. His sustained excellence and versatile acting skills have earned him numerous accolades, making him one of the most decorated actors in the industry. The Plaintiff's substantial goodwill and reputation are evidenced by his 6.3 million followers on social media platform X, demonstrating widespread public recognition and admiration. 
• As a person of celebrity status, the Plaintiff possesses exclusive personality and publicity rights over all facets of his persona, including his name, likeness, image, voice, mannerisms, gestures and other uniquely identifiable characteristics. These rights protect him from unauthorised appropriation of his persona and prevent third parties from exploiting these rights without his express consent and authorisation.  
• The Plaintiff's name, image and persona have acquired unique distinctiveness, such that any unauthorised use by third parties causes confusion and deception amongst the general public regarding his affiliation with or endorsement of products or services. 
• The present suit arises from systematic violations of the Plaintiff's personality rights by multiple defendants across various digital platforms. Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 comprise various websites that unauthorisedly use the Plaintiff's name in direct relation to pornographic content hosted on their platforms.  
  • These include websites such as www.bfxxx.org, www.tubewap.xyz, www.xxxxpornvideo.com, www.xxxv.mobi, www.alldesiporn.com, and others. The association of the Plaintiff's name and persona with objectionable pornographic content constitutes a grave violation of his dignity and reputation. 
• Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 operate commercial websites (www.nextprint.in and www.fullyfilmy.in) that unauthorisedly sell T-shirts and merchandise bearing the Plaintiff's name, image and photograph, thereby commercially exploiting his persona without authorisation. Defendant Nos. 13 to 16 are registrants and Domain Name Registrars of the infringing websites. Defendant Nos. 18 and 19 are the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India.  
• Defendant No. 20 comprises unknown entities who are apprehended to be uploading and publishing infringing material on digital platforms.  
• The Plaintiff attempted resolution by sending legal notices to various Defendants, but these either went unanswered, were returned undelivered, or elicited responses refusing action, necessitating judicial intervention. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Prima Facie Findings 
  • Upon consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence and submissions presented by learned Counsel, the Court observed that it is prima facie clear that the attributes of the Plaintiff's persona, including his name and images, are being systematically misused by Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and 20 without any authorisation from the Plaintiff. 
  • The Court noted that the Plaintiff is a celebrated personality in the entertainment industry. 
  • The depiction of the Plaintiff in settings that are misleading, derogatory and inappropriate—particularly in association with pornographic content—will inevitably have the deleterious effect of diluting the substantial goodwill and reputation associated with him. 
• Legal Principles on Personality Rights 
  • The Court articulated that the exploitation of one's personality rights puts at risk not merely economic interests, but also the fundamental right to live with dignity. 
  • Such exploitation potentially causes immeasurable and irreparable harm to reputation and goodwill. 
  • The unauthorised adoption of attributes such as name, image and likeness will inevitably cause confusion in the minds of members of the public regarding association with or endorsement by the Plaintiff. 
  • Such unauthorised use constitutes actionable passing off and misrepresentation. 
• Precedential Framework 
  • The Court grounded its observations in the established precedent of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641, wherein ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted to protect a celebrity plaintiff from unauthorised use of his celebrity status. 
  • The Court also considered Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. (order dated 09.09.2025), wherein injunctive relief was granted against misuse of personality rights through technological means including Artificial Intelligence. 
  • These precedents establish a consistent judicial approach recognising that personality rights merit robust protection, particularly against exploitation through modern technological means that enable widespread dissemination of infringing content across India. 

What is Section 12A of Commerical Court Act ? 

• Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation 
  • Section 12A(1) provides that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation. 
  • The pre-institution mediation shall be conducted in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. 
• Authorisation of Mediation Authorities 
  • Section 12A(2) empowers the Central Government to authorise, by notification, the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for the purposes of pre-institution mediation. 
• Time Limit for Mediation Process 
  • Section 12A(3) mandates that the Authority authorised by the Central Government shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff. 
  • The period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties. 
  • The period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. 
• Settlement Agreement 
  • Section 12A(4) provides that if the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator. 
• Legal Effect of Settlement 
  • Section 12A(5) provides that the settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.