26 June 2025 Legal Updates

NON-COMPETE CLAUSE CAN'T CURTAIL RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE TO GET EMPLOYMENT AFTER NOTICE PERIOD: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 25, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia (Vacation Judge)

Key Facts

Varun Tyagi, an IT engineer, worked for Daffodil Software from January 2022 to April 2025. His employment agreement contained non-compete and non-solicitation clauses that prohibited him from working with business associates of Daffodil for 3 years after termination. Tyagi was assigned to work on the POSHAN Tracker project for Digital India Corporation (DIC), a government client of Daffodil. After resigning and completing his notice period, Tyagi joined DIC directly as Deputy General Manager. Daffodil sued for breach of contract and obtained an interim injunction preventing Tyagi from working with DIC.

Legal Issues

Whether post-employment non-compete clauses are valid under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that agreements restraining lawful profession, trade, or business are void?

Court's Analysis and Ruling

1. Section 27 of Indian Contract Act

The court emphasized that under Indian law, all agreements in restraint of trade are void unless they fall within specific exceptions. Unlike English law, Indian law does not distinguish between partial and complete restraints - any restraint on trade is void.

Key Legal Principles Established:

1. Post-employment restrictions are generally void:

• Negative covenants that restrict employment after termination of contract violate Section 27

2. No reasonableness test:

• Courts cannot apply principles of "reasonableness" or "partial restraint" to save otherwise void clauses

3. Employee's right to livelihood:

• Freedom to seek better employment cannot be curtailed through contractual restrictions

4. Confidentiality vs. Employment Ban:

• While employees can be restrained from disclosing confidential information, they cannot be prevented from taking up employment

Court's Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the interim injunction, holding that:

Clause 2.16 of the employment agreement was in restraint of trade and therefore void. The intellectual property in question belonged to DIC, not Daffodil. Preventing Tyagi from working would cause him irreparable harm. Daffodil could seek monetary damages if they proved breach, but employment ban was not justified.

DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS TAKE DOWN OF YOUTUBE CHANNEL USING DEEPFAKE IMPERSONATIONS OF AAJ TAK'S ANJANA OM KASHYAP

(a) Case Title:

• T.V. Today Network Limited & Anr. v. Google LLC & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 20, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Prathiba M. Singh (Vacation Judge)

Background

T.V. Today Network Limited (a leading media house running channels like Aajtak and India Today) and Anjana Om Kashyap (Managing Editor) filed a suit against Google LLC and unknown defendants regarding fake YouTube channels impersonating Ms. Kashyap.

Key Facts

Ms. Anjana Om Kashyap has a legitimate YouTube channel '@AnjanaomKashyap-AOK' with about 39,300 subscribers. Unknown persons created a fake YouTube channel '@AnajanaomKashya' (note the missing 'P' in Kashyap). The fake channel used Ms. Kashyap's photograph and created fake videos/news clippings to deceive viewers. The fake channel was monetizing content using her identity and reputation.

Legal Issues

• Whether unauthorized use of Ms. Kashyap's name, image, and likeness lead to personality rights violation?
• Whether misuse of T.V. Today Network's reputation leads to trademark/ goodwill infringement?
• Whether risk of spreading misinformation without editorial control leads to fake news dissemination?
• Whether monetizing content using stolen identity leads to commercial exploitation?

Court's Findings

The court noted that there exists a clear difference between genuine and fake YouTube pages. Fake profiles using plaintiffs' goodwill violate her personality rights. In news broadcasting, responsibility lies with genuine broadcasters. Fake channels could damage reputation and spread misinformation. YouTube channels are created for revenue generation, making this commercial exploitation.

Order Passed

Interim Injunction Granted:

• Google LLC must take down the fake channel '@AnajanaomKashya' within 48 hours
• Google must disclose Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the fake channel owner within 2 weeks
• Google must provide account of revenues paid to the fake channel within 4 weeks
• For future fake channels, Google must take them down within 72 hours of notification

MUSLIM WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DEMAND DIVORCE BY 'KHULA' IS ABSOLUTE, NOT DEPENDANT ON HUSBAND'S ACCEPTANCE: TELANGANA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Mohammed Arif Ali v. Smt. Afsarunnisa and Another

(b) Court:

• High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• 24th June 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Hon'ble Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

Background Facts

Appellant (husband) and Respondent No.1 (wife) married on 1st June 2012 with dower of Rs.11,000/-. Wife stayed in marital home for 5 years but faced assault and violence from husband. On 7th July 2017, wife was hospitalized due to assault and moved to parents' house. Wife demanded Khula divorce which husband refused. Wife approached Respondent No.2 (Sada-E-Haq Sharai Council) for Khula divorce. Council sent three notices and invited reconciliation, but husband refused to participate. Council issued divorce certificate on 5th October 2020.

Legal Issue

Whether a religious council/society has authority to grant Khula divorce and issue a divorce certificate (Khulanama)?

Arguments

1. Appellant's (Husband's) Arguments:

Respondent No.2 is merely a society/NGO without legal authority to grant divorce. It lacks jurisdiction to decide Khula plea and issue divorce certificate. Only a Mufti or Qazi can deliver judgment under Shariat law

2. Respondent's (Wife's) Arguments:

Khula divorce comes into effect without court intervention under Muslim Personal Law. Only court judgments or Qaza are binding, not advisory opinions (Fatwa). Family Court applied correct principles of Muslim Personal Law.

Key Legal Principles on Khula Divorce

Khula literally means "relinquishment" in Arabic. It is a mode of dissolution when wife doesn't want to continue marriage. Wife's right to Khula is parallel to husband's right to Talaq. Both are unconditional forms of divorce. It is a ‘no-fault’ type of divorce that doesn't require husband's consent.

Four Procedural Approaches Identified by Court:

1. Private Settlement Approach:

• Wife consults Mufti who gives advisory Fatwa; if unsuccessful, matter goes to court for binding Qaza

2. Absolute Right Approach:

• Wife has unconditional right to Khula similar to husband's right to Talaq; reconciliation required but husband cannot refuse

3. Judicial Intervention Approach:

• When husband refuses, becomes judicial divorce (Faskh) requiring court intervention

4. Constitutional Framework Approach:

• Based on constitutional principles that no one can be forced to remain married against their will

Essential Requirements for Valid Khula:

• Reconciliation attempts must precede Khula
• Wife may offer consideration but it's not mandatory
• Husband's consent is not necessary
• Wife can approach religious functionaries for Khulanama
• Husband can challenge in Family Court
• Family Court decides validity based on above principles

Court's Decision and Reasoning

1. Fatwa vs. Qaza:

• Advisory opinions (Fatwa) by religious functionaries are not legally binding; only court judgments (Qaza) are binding

2. Immediate Effect:

• Wife's Khula proposal takes immediate effect when made in private sphere

3. Court's Role:

• Court only provides judicial stamp on marriage termination

4. Summary Inquiry:

• Family Court should conduct summary inquiry without long-drawn evidence

Final Ruling:

High Court upheld Family Court's dismissal of husband's petition. Court clarified that Mufti/Religious Functionary lacks authority to certify Khula divorce. It held that the marriage between parties no longer subsisting.