Delhi High Court seeks response of the Central Government in the petition filed by All India Confederation of the Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries discontinuing the GST concession on certain vehicles given to persons with disabilities.
The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Advocate Rahul Bajaj was appearing for the petitioners - Ministry of Heavy Industries has decided to discontinue issuing GST concession certificate under the GST exemption certificate.
Court recorded - It has been brought to our notice a notice dated October 8, 2025 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries that same rate of 18% GST on certain categories of cars will apply to all persons including orthopedically disabled persons. Accordingly, the Ministry has decided to discontinue issuing GST concession certificate for orthopedically disabled persons under the GST scheme.
Chief Justice - Who is for the Government? What have you done? What can be the plausible basis for this?
Justice Gedela - You have taken away the benefit already given to them?
Counsel representing State - He is right to the extent that 18% was uniformly applicable for vehicles of all disabled persons. However I am not aware that they have discontinued the practice of certificate for locomotive disabled persons.
Advocate Bajaj - Earlier the regime was that the people with locomotive disability the GST was 18% and for persons without disabilities it was 28%. Now for people without disabilities also the GST has come down to 18% so they say there is no need for a special concession for persons with disabilities.
Justice Gedela - There has to be a rationale for GST. What is this you have done? You brought it down from 28 to 18 and now it is 18 for all. Please give rationale, we cannot understand. is no corresponding concession for ..what have you done for the vulnerable?
Chief Justice - You confront your officers yourself, or else we will confront them.
Justice Gedela - The choice is that you better do it.
Chief Justice - There has to be a proportional decrease in GST for them also. It is a kind of positive discrimination. Why could you not reduce the GST for them as well?
Court - We direct the counsel representing the respondents to seek instruction as to why a corresponding decrease in the rate of GST to be levied from persons who are orthopedically and visually disabled cannot be brought into effect.
The next date of hearing is December 19.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Delhi High Court heard the submissions of intervenor Broadband India Forum in the copyright suit filed by ANI against OpenAI.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar is appearing for Broadband India Forum.
The matter is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal.
Datar - LLM can access a large amount of information and create a unique response. We represent large players who have their own LLM models. Once the item is in public domain, I cannot verbatim reproduce it but I can access it.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting gives an undertaking before Delhi High Court to formulate final guidelines for disabled friendly accessibility features on OTT platforms.
The matter was listed before Justice Sachin Datta.
The petitioners, specially abled visually impaired persons, were aggrieved by the lack of disabled friendly accessibility features in the recent Bollywood blockbuster movies on OTT platform.
"Shoe throwing incident" mentioned before Justice Surya Kant led bench
SCBA President Vikas Singh: This shoe throwing incident cannot go unnoticed like this. This person has no remorse. I have sought consent from attorney general and the criminal contempt be listed tomorrow. Social media has gone berserk
SG Tushar Mehta: consent has been given...It is the institutional integrity at stake.
Justice Surya Kant: We are all for free speech. Problem is how to regulate.
SG: The opportunity this institution missed taking and some action was needed.
Justice Kant: CJI has shown magnanimity and it shows that Institution is not affected as such
SG: The way this social media is being uncontrollably used..some are making a glory out of this.. and some are speaking of his courage etc. This is about institution..it cannot go on.
SC: We will treat this matter uninfluenced by anything else.
Sr Adv Singh: This is an insult to Lord Vishnu also. I am sure he took would not want this.
Justice Kant: Our religion has never promoted violence. Just think about this..in social media everything becomes a saleable thing.
Delhi High Court pulls up DDA over delays in handing over possession of land in Shahdara for the construction of residential buildings for judicial officers; Court says it is not impressed with “excuse” that Rs 50k was left to be paid.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter.
Court: Why has Shahdara land not been given? Payment was given in July.
Lawyer: There was some discrepancy, some balance, small amount of 50k.
Court: It’s a matter of ₹50k, you could have easily handed over possession, asked for deposit (later)…Since 19th July, despite all formalities, not handed over possession? Possession could have been given with a sense of expedition
Delhi High Court permits an application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia seeking modification of the order dated September 25 wherein the Court issued summons in his defamation suit.
Justice Amit Bansal heard the matter.
The Counsel appearing for Bhatia was seeking modification of the September 25 order to the extent that he may be exempted from serving the defendants through all modes.
Supreme Court hears a plea challenging the grant of defence land within cantonments to private individuals and alleging encroachment of thousands of acres of defence property across the country.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Adv. Prashant Bhushan: After several orders of the Court, last time the Attorney General said that they had appointed a committee. I have gone through the interim report, and it virtually says nothing.
Adv. Prashant Bhushan: They mentioned that they had a few meetings but did not proceed further because they couldn't obtain the records. First, they filed a status report in which they stated that the entire digitization of all defense lands had been completed. And today, this committee is apparently saying that they are still trying to search for records, etc. If digitization is complete, where is the need to search for records?