SC slams Delhi govt for being absent in court despite notice

The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi government's absence in a case, urging accountability and proper representation in future legal matters.

The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the absence of any representative from the Delhi government despite advance notice in a criminal matter, terming the situation “unfortunate” and directing that its order be placed before the law secretary to ensure proper representation in future.

The observations came in a case where the top court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR registered at Khajuri Khas police station in northeast Delhi.

A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan noted that “nobody was present on behalf of the respondent-State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)” when the matter was taken up, even though notice had been duly served.

“The situation is unfortunate,” the bench said.

Emphasising the need for accountability, the court directed that a copy of its order be communicated to the law secretary-cum-legal remembrancer of the Delhi government, who “shall ensure that there is proper appearance” on behalf of the city in all cases before courts.

The observations came in a case where the top court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered at Khajuri Khas police station in northeast Delhi.

The petitioner had sought protection from arrest in a case registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including sections 64(1), 74, 79, 117(2), 351(B), and 3(5). These provisions broadly relate to serious offences including sexual assault, criminal intimidation, assault, and common intention, reflecting the gravity of allegations typically invoked in such disputes.

During the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant informed the court that the dispute had been amicably settled. She submitted that the case arose out of a matrimonial discord within a family, where the complainant is the wife of the petitioner’s elder brother.

The settlement envisaged that the woman would return to her matrimonial home without interference and that other family members would not disturb her marital life.

Taking a “holistic view” of the matter, the bench noted the familial nature of the dispute and the fact that parties had resolved their differences. It accordingly allowed the anticipatory bail plea, directing that the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within three weeks, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.