Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [April 13-19, 2026]

1. [Sterling Biotech Fraud] Financial media platform Moneylife and journalist Sucheta Dalal have approached a Delhi court challenging an ex parte order directing removal and de-indexing of online content linking businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family to the alleged Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. The appeal, filed by Moneywise Media LLP, came up before District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena at the Tis Hazari Courts. The court issued notice in the plea and posted the matter for further hearing on April 29 after submissions were made seeking a stay on the impugned order. The challenge arises from an ex parte ad-interim injunction passed by a senior civil judge, which restrained Google LLC, Meta Platforms and unknown entities from publishing or hosting content concerning Sandesara and his family in connection with the alleged fraud case. The trial court had also directed the platforms to de-index and remove URLs of the impugned material from search results during the pendency of the defamation suit, even extending to content not specifically identified in the plaint. While granting relief, the court had observed that media must maintain accuracy and objectivity and avoid sensationalism in reporting.

Case Title: Moneywise Media LLP v. Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara

Bench: District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena

Click here to read more

2. [Shikohpur Land Deal Case] A Delhi court has taken cognisance of a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against businessman Robert Vadra and others in a money laundering case linked to a controversial land deal in Haryana’s Shikohpur area, marking a significant development in the long-running probe. Special Judge Sushant Changotra of the Rouse Avenue Court observed that the complaint and accompanying material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against Vadra and eight other accused persons. The court accordingly took cognisance of offences under Section 3 (money laundering) read with Section 70 (offences by companies) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), punishable under Section 4, and issued summons directing their appearance on May 16. The ED had filed its prosecution complaint in July 2025 against Vadra; husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and 10 others. This marked the first instance of a probe agency filing a chargesheet against him in a criminal case. At the stage of cognisance, the court clarified that its scrutiny is limited. It emphasised that it is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists based on the averments in the complaint and the documents placed on record, without delving into a detailed evaluation of evidence. “The scope of inquiry at this stage is very narrow,” the court noted, adding that it was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to proceed further.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Robert Vadra & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Sudhant Changotra

Click here to read more 

3. [Jacqueline Fernandez] A Delhi court has issued notice on a plea filed by Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez seeking to turn approver in the ₹200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma at the Patiala House Courts sought a response from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and listed the matter for hearing on April 28. Fernandez has been summoned multiple times during the investigation and was named as a co-accused for the first time in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED. She has been arrayed as the tenth accused in the case. In July last year, the Delhi High Court dismissed her plea seeking quashing of the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The High Court had observed that her apprehension regarding self-incrimination could not be a ground to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), noting that statutory and constitutional safeguards were already in place.

Case Title: State v. Sukash Chandrashekhar & Sukesh & Ors.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma

Click here to read more

4. [Transgender Amendment Act] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central Government on a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which introduced changes to the framework established under the 2019 law governing transgender rights. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on July 22, while seeking responses from the Centre on the issues raised in the petition. The plea has been filed by advocate Dr Chandresh Jain, who contended that the 2026 amendment undermines fundamental rights guaranteed to transgender persons and dilutes the legal recognition of gender identity as a matter of personal autonomy. At the core of the challenge is the argument that the amendment introduces State controlled verification and certification mechanisms for recognising gender identity.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

5. [Arvind Kejriwal Recusal Video] The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal’s court appearance from social media platforms, triggering a fresh controversy at the intersection of law, politics, and digital dissemination of judicial proceedings. The direction was issued by Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj, who held that the recording and circulation of court proceedings amounted to a clear violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. These rules expressly prohibit any form of recording or publication of proceedings conducted through virtual or hybrid modes. The order applies to all individuals and entities responsible for uploading or sharing such content online, including on platforms like X. The issue arose after videos of Kejriwal’s appearances on April 6 and April 13, where he argued his recusal plea in person before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, went viral across social media. Notably, the bench on April 13, reserved the order in the plea. In a detailed 39 page affidavit, the CBI had strongly contested the allegations made by the petitioners, who had claimed a likelihood of bias on the part of the judge due to her alleged ideological association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. The plea had pointed out that Justice Sharma had attended events organised by the body. Rejecting this contention, the agency had argued that mere participation in legal seminars cannot be construed as evidence of ideological bias, especially when such events are not political in nature.

Click here to read more

6. [Kejriwal's Recusal Plea] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed pleas filed by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, arguing before the Delhi High Court that the allegations are baseless and, if accepted, would have far-reaching consequences for the judiciary. In its written submissions and affidavit, the probe agency contended that Kejriwal’s claim of bias, based on the fact that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as counsel for the Central government, cannot be a ground for recusal. It asserted that neither of her children “ever dealt with or even assisted anyone” in matters related to the excise policy case. “Both are independent practitioners and are not attached to any senior lawyer,” the CBI stated, adding that one of them has been on the Union government panel since 2022, contrary to allegations that the empanelment was recent. Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit, had argued that the judge’s children being assigned work by the Solicitor General; who appears for the CBI, creates a “reasonable apprehension of bias”, warranting her recusal from the matter.Rejecting this contention, the CBI warned that accepting such a proposition would lead to an untenable situation. “All learned Judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters pertaining to such Governments…if their relatives are on any government panel,” it submitted.

Case Title: CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here, here, here, here and here to read more

7. [AI Generated Artwork] The Delhi High Court has directed the Copyright Office to expeditiously decide an application filed by Stephen Thaler seeking copyright registration for an artwork generated by an artificial intelligence system developed by him, underscoring the need for timely adjudication in matters raising emerging questions at the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law. A single judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while taking note of the prolonged pendency of the application since 2022, directed that the hearing scheduled before the Copyright Office be conducted and the proceedings be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of hearing. The Court passed the direction after recording the submission of the Registrar of Copyright that the matter has now been listed for hearing on April 27, and observed that a time-bound decision was warranted given the absence of any effective progress over the past several years. The proceedings arise from an application filed by Thaler seeking copyright registration for an artistic work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, which was generated using an artificial intelligence system known as DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), developed by him. The application has remained pending without substantive adjudication, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking directions for its disposal. Before the Court, Thaler contended that despite the issuance of notice and lapse of nearly four years, the Copyright Office had failed to either conduct a meaningful hearing or pass any order on his application. It was argued that such inaction had caused prejudice, particularly in a rapidly evolving technological landscape where questions concerning the ownership and protection of AI-generated works are becoming increasingly significant.

Case Title: Stephen Thaler v. Union of India

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

8. [LIC policy] The Delhi High Court has clarified that while individuals are entitled to seek details of their Life Insurance Corporation policies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 without necessarily providing policy numbers, such requests must include sufficient identifying particulars to enable retrieval of records. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an intra court appeal filed by a policyholder who had sought a complete list of policies issued in her name without furnishing policy numbers or adequate supporting details.“Writ jurisdiction, in fact, is plenary in nature and can be exercised by this Court in appropriate cases even where any statutory provision attaches finality to an order or makes such order binding. It is needless to state that judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away by any statutory provision. Thus, the submission made by the appellant on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 19(7) of the RTI Act is highly misconceived which merits rejection”, the Court observed. The case arose from an RTI application filed in March 2022, wherein the appellant requested information regarding all policies in which she was the insured. The Central Public Information Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India declined the request on the ground that the absence of policy numbers made it impossible to trace the records. This decision was subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

Case Title: Ambika Gupta v. CPIO LIC

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

9. [I-Pac Director] A Delhi court has held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) complied with statutory requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while arresting Vinesh Kumar Chandel, Director of I-PAC, and granted the agency 10 days’ custody for further investigation. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shefali Barnala Tandon of the Patiala House Court passed the order. In its order, the court recorded that all mandatory safeguards under Sections 19(1), 19(2), and 19(3) of the PMLA were duly followed at the time of arrest. It noted that copies of the arrest order, grounds of arrest, and related documents were furnished to the accused with proper acknowledgment, and that the material was also forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.  Referring to the Enforcement Directorate’s submissions, the court took note of allegations that Chandel was involved in routing funds through informal channels, including hawala, and that certain transactions were conducted outside the formal banking system. The agency further claimed that multiple financial dealings with various entities lacked any apparent legitimate business purpose. The court also recorded the ED’s contention that statements made during the course of investigation were inconsistent with the documentary material collected. Additionally, it noted allegations that certain electronic records and emails were deleted following search proceedings, which, according to the agency, may have impacted the investigation.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shefali Barnala Tandon

Click here to read more

10. [1986 Rashtrapati Bhawan Forgery Case] A Delhi court has acquitted all surviving accused in one of the country’s oldest pending criminal cases, originally initiated on the directions of the Supreme Court nearly three decades ago over allegations of forging official records of the President’s Secretariat. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Courts cleared Mohan Lal Jatia, Ashok Jatia and Ashok Jain of charges including criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence and forgery, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.  Two other accused, Milap Chand Jagotra and Gurcharan Singh, both of whom were serving in the President’s Secretariat at the time of the alleged offence, had died during the pendency of the trial. Proceedings against them were abated. In a detailed judgment, the court observed that the prosecution’s case was built more on suspicion than proof. “When the evidence is appreciated in its entirety, this Court finds that the prosecution’s case rests on conjectures and inferences, rather than legal proof… On the other hand, the accused persons have been able to cast a serious dent in the case of the prosecution,” the court noted.

Case Title: Supreme Court of India v. Milap Chand Jagotra & Ors.

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari

Click here to read more