Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [April 20-26, 2026]

1. [Defamatory video on Bansuri Swaraj] A Delhi court has directed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leaders, including Saurabh Bharadwaj and Ankush Narang, to remove allegedly defamatory content targeting BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj, observing that the right to reputation cannot be “sacrificed and crucified” at the altar of free speech. The order was passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh while hearing a civil defamation suit filed by Swaraj seeking removal of the content, injunction, damages and a public apology. After examining the material on record and viewing the impugned video in court, the judge held that Swaraj had established a prima facie case. The court noted that the content appeared to distort facts and mislead the public, adding that its continued circulation posed a risk of “irreparable reputational harm.” “The right of reputation of a living individual under Article 21… cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of the right of freedom of speech and expression,” the court observed, emphasising that monetary damages cannot adequately compensate for reputational injury. The court further held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and reiterated that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation.

Case Title: Ms. Bansuri Swaraj v. Mr. Saurabh Bharadwaj & Ors.

Bench: Principal District & Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh

Click here to read more

2. [Abhijit Iyer Mitra] A Delhi court has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra over allegedly abusive and sexually coloured remarks made against Manisha Pande and other women journalists associated with Newslaundry. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh at the Saket Courts passed the order while allowing an application filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking directions for registration of an FIR. The court observed that the content of the tweets prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relate to sexually coloured remarks and outraging the modesty of a woman. “On perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the content posted by the accused qualifies as sexually coloured remarks and appears intended to insult the modesty of the complainant. Therefore, on perusal of the application and the material placed on record by the complainant, this Court is of the view that the content of the tweets posted by the accused on “X” platform discloses commission of cognizable offences under section 75(3) and 79 of BNS,” the court noted, adding that Pande had been specifically named in at least one of the tweets.

Case Title: Manisha Pande and Ors. v. Abhijit Iyer Mitra

Bench: JMFC Bhanu Pratap Singh

Click here to read more 

3. [IRS Officer's Daughter's Murder] A Delhi court has remanded 19-year-old Rahul Meena, accused of murdering a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer’s daughter, to four days of police custody for further investigation. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Deepika Thakaran at Saket Courts allowed the Delhi Police’s plea seeking custodial interrogation, noting the need to reconstruct the sequence of events and recover evidence linked to the crime. Meena was produced before the court earlier in the day after his arrest on Wednesday evening from a hotel in Dwarka, where he was allegedly hiding following the incident. Prior to the hearing, as per reports, a police team took him to the crime scene in southeast Delhi’s Kailash Hills to recreate the events leading up to the murder. The 22-year-old victim, an engineering graduate, was found critically injured at her residence. According to investigators, she was allegedly strangled using a mobile phone charger and sustained head injuries inflicted with a heavy object. She was rushed to a hospital by her parents, who had returned home from the gym, but later succumbed to her injuries.

Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Deepika Thakaran

Click here to read more

4. [Arvind Kejriwal Case; Unauthorised Court proceedings] The Delhi High Court has took serious note of the alleged unauthorised recording and circulation of court proceedings in connection with the excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal, directing social media platforms to remove identified content and assist in tracing the original uploader. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Vaibhav Singh seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, journalist Ravish Kumar and others over the alleged dissemination of video clips from a hearing conducted on April 13 before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The petitioner contended that the recording and subsequent circulation of the proceedings violated the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, which expressly prohibit recording or publication of court proceedings without prior judicial permission. It was further alleged that selectively edited clips were shared online to advance a political narrative. During the hearing, the Bench underscored the institutional implications of such acts, observing that the issue went beyond individual violations and directly impacted the dignity of the judiciary. “We are concerned with the question at large, which affects the institution,” Justice Rao remarked.

Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v. Delhi High Court & Ors.

Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here, here and here to read more

5. [Arvind Kejriwal's Recusal Plea] The Delhi High Court has rejected former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case. Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Sharma made it clear that she would continue to hear the matter, firmly rejecting allegations of bias and asserting the independence of the judiciary. “Judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by a litigant,” she said, adding, “A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception.” Opening her judgment on a reflective note, Justice Sharma remarked, “When I began to pen this judgment, the courtroom had fallen silent… I realised my silence as a judge was itself being put to test.” She noted that while recusal may have been the easier course, she chose to decide the issue as it concerned the “institution and its integrity.” The Court observed that the plea had effectively placed the judiciary itself on trial. “In this case, I am not the judge; in fact, the litigant has put the judiciary and me on trial,” Justice Sharma said, adding that she had “chosen to resolve the controversy.”

Case Title: CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

6. [Jacqueline Fernandez] A Delhi court has granted time to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response to a plea moved by actor Jacqueline Fernandez seeking to turn approver in the ₹200 crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. ASJ Prashant Sharma of Patiala House Court adjourned the matter for further proceedings to May 8, after the agency sought additional time to respond to the application. Fernandez, who was repeatedly summoned by the ED during the course of investigation, was named as an accused for the first time in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the agency. She is currently seeking to be treated as an approver in the case, a move that could potentially alter her position from an accused to a prosecution witness. The case stems from allegations that Chandrasekhar orchestrated a ₹200 crore fraud involving high-profile individuals, including the spouses of former Ranbaxy promoters. The Delhi Police had registered the case, accusing Chandrasekhar of duping Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh’s family members.

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

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma

Click here to read more

7. [Animal Custody] The Delhi High Court has held that custody disputes involving animals cannot be decided on the same footing as disputes over inanimate property, underscoring that the emotional bond between pets and their caregivers must be given due weight. The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, while deciding a petition concerning the custody of three rescued pet dogs, directed that the animals be returned to their adoptive parents. The Court observed that separating the dogs from the petitioners, with whom they had developed a bond after adoption, would result in emotional trauma to the animals. “……after detailed discussion, keeping in mind welfare of those three pet dogs, both sides have arrived at an agreement that the said three dogs be released to the present petitioners on superdari. To be specific, respondent no.3 present in courtroom has been explained the entire discussion in Hindi and he, in the interest of those three dogs, is willing to return those dogs to the petitioners with the condition that in case ultimately he gets acquitted, custody of those three dogs would be returned to him, subject to their welfare”, the court observed.

Case Title: Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Ors. v. State

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Click here to read more

8. [POCSO Act] The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed an FIR registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against a husband accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with his then minor wife, who has since married him, given birth to their child, and consistently stated that she suffered no harm. The decision was delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who underscored the need to distinguish between a “de jure victim” and a “de facto victim” while dealing with such cases. Drawing from legal philosophy, including the works of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the Court laid down important guiding principles for quashing proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in exceptional circumstances. “…..this court would also caution against wanton misuse of „compromise‟ quashing of criminal proceedings by unscrupulous offenders against gullible or vulnerable victims. The courts must be vigilant against offenders who use deceit, stratagem or dishonest device, to obtain quashing of criminal proceedings in their favour. In particular, it is necessary to instal strong guardrails and parameters for consent quashing of criminal proceedings concerning offences under the POCSO Act”, the Court observed. The case arose from an FIR registered not at the instance of the prosecutrix, but based on information provided by doctors at a government hospital when the girl, found to be a minor, was admitted for childbirth. At the time of the alleged offence, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, while the accused was an adult. The relationship later culminated in marriage performed according to Sikh rites, and the couple now has a child.

Case Title: Harmeet Singh v. State of GNCT Delhi And Anr.

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Click here to read more

9. [Law Prep Tutorial] The Delhi High Court has passed an ad-interim injunction restraining Law Prep Tutorial and its affiliates from publishing or disseminating defamatory and disparaging content against LegalEdge, while also prohibiting the use of CLAT 2026 All India Rank 1 holder Geetali Gupta’s name, identity, or images, including AI-generated or morphed content, across any platform. The Court further directed intermediaries such as Google and Meta to remove or disable access to the identified content within 72 hours, observing prima facie that the material formed part of a coordinated campaign aimed at tarnishing the plaintiffs’ reputation. The order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on April 13, 2026 in a commercial suit, granting ex parte ad-interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court restrained the defendants from publishing defamatory content, using the student’s identity, or interfering with relevant records, and directed intermediaries to take down the impugned content within 72 hours. It also directed preservation of all data relating to the alleged campaign and issued summons in the suit, granting time for filing written statements and completion of pleadings.

Case Title: Toprankers EdTech Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. LPT EdTech Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Youtuber; Criminal Contempt] The Delhi High Court has convicted a YouTuber for criminal contempt after finding that videos and banners uploaded on his channel contained scandalous and derogatory remarks against judges and the judicial system, aimed at undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. The proceedings were initiated suo-motu by the Court after receiving references from judicial officers who flagged objectionable content published on a YouTube channel titled “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms.” The material included interviews with advocates and prominently displayed banners naming specific judges alongside sensational captions. Upon examining the content, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that it went far beyond the scope of legitimate criticism. It observed that the material was not a genuine attempt to engage with judicial reform but rather a deliberate effort to create distrust and damage the reputation of the judiciary. “…….The intent of respondent no. 2 is, therefore, writ large of only scandalising and lowering the image of these Judicial Officers in the general public, thereby lowering the authority of the Court. It is not to generate a healthy debate but to scandalize the Court. It is not bona fide but is mala fide to bring to disrepute the judicial system and to lower the authority of the courts”, the court observed.

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv and Ors.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more