Explore Business Standard
The Centre on Monday told the Delhi High Court that rules under the Industrial Relations Code will be finalised by the end of February. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma informed a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that suggestions from the public had been sought and framing of rules was under consideration. The court was hearing a petition on the implementation of the Industrial Relations Code 2020, which consolidates all laws relating to trade unions, conditions of employment in an industrial establishment and settlement of industrial disputes. According to the petitioners, N A Sebastian and Sunil Kumar, the Central government published a gazette notification on November 21, 2025, notifying the Industrial Relations Code 2020, but did not frame the rules to implement the new regime or constitute the tribunals under it. On Monday, Solicitor General Mehta said the Centre issued two notifications today to remove t
The Delhi government on Monday told the Supreme Court that a new law which regulates fees in private schools in the national capital will not be implemented in the academic year 2025-26. The statement was made before a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe which was hearing a batch of pleas concerning the implementation of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Delhi government, told the bench that the law will not be enforced in the current academic year. "In view of the clarification of S V Raju... that the legal regime will not be implemented with effect from 2025-26, no further orders are required," the bench said. The bench left all the issues open for being raised before the Delhi High Court which is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 2025 Act and its subsequent rules. The top court was hearing pleas, including those challenging a January 8 order of the h
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted four weeks to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond to a reply filed by separatist leader Yasin Malik to its appeal seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case, and listed the matter for hearing on April 22. As Malik, who was virtually appearing from Tihar jail where he is serving life sentence in the case, accused the agency of "wasting time" and causing him "trauma" by "taking dates" in the appeal filed in 2023, a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said there was no urgency in the case. "There is no urgency. This is for enhancement of sentence. You are already on life sentence," the bench remarked. The court gave four weeks as "last opportunity" to the NIA to file its rejoinder. NIA counsel submitted that Mailk filed a lengthy reply to the agency's appeal, which even had content "not related" to the case, and the rejoinder was being vetted. He also objected to Malik's claim of NIA seeking repeated
Name, parentage or address of a survivor of sexual assault should not be disclosed in any document or report filed in courts, the Delhi High Court has directed the city police. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma called upon the commissioner of Delhi Police to give appropriate instructions to all SHOs and investigating officers to strictly comply with law against the disclosure of identity of survivors of sexual offences. The court passed the direction while rejecting the bail plea of an accused in a POCSO case. It "noted with concern" that the name of the prosecutrix was mentioned in the status report filed by the investigating officer in the present case. "The DCP of the concerned area (having jurisdiction over Moti Nagar police station) is directed to sensitise all SHOs under his jurisdiction to strictly ensure that the name, parentage or address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status report or document filed before the courts," ordered the court on January 14. "T
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation against the lowering of qualifying cut-off marks in NEET PG -2025 for admission to postgraduate medical courses. The petitioner claimed that a low cut off would compromise the quality of medical professionals joining the specialization courses, endangering human lives. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhayay and Justice Tejas Karia, however, said the purpose of higher education was development of further skills and not to judge the quality of doctors. It also questioned the petitioner on the numbers of doctors required in the country and said it would let seats remain vacant. "Will it be in public interest to leave the seats vacant? No, we will not permit," remarked the bench. "The only argument we can gather is (that) lowering this cut off marks will send MBBS doctors with less competence to pursue their postgraduate. What is the purpose of granting higher education? Purpose is to make them more skilled in an