Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [December 15-21, 2025]

1. [National Herald Case] Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has ruled that Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, along with other accused, are not entitled to a copy of the FIR in proceedings arising out of a fresh case registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing in the National Herald matter. In a parallel development, the Court declined to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the National Herald money laundering case, holding that the statutory requirements for taking cognisance were not met at this stage. The order was passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne, who observed that while the ED is at liberty to continue further investigation, the Court cannot presently proceed to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint. The Court noted that the ED’s case originates from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the subsequent summoning orders passed by a magistrate, rather than from a registered FIR. In such circumstances, the judge held, cognisance of the chargesheet could not be taken in the manner sought by the prosecution.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

2. [Birch Nightclub Goa] A Delhi Court has granted the Goa Police a two-day transit remand of Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra, co-owners of the North Goa nightclub where 25 people died in a devastating fire on December 6. The accused were produced before Judicial Magistrate Twinkle Chawla at the Patiala House Courts after being arrested by the Goa Police upon their deportation from Thailand. The investigating officer sought a three-day transit remand, informing the Court that the accused would be taken to Goa by the earliest available flight to continue the investigation. Allowing the plea in part, the Magistrate granted a two-day transit remand. The Luthra brothers were brought to court in separate police vehicles amid tight security arrangements and were earlier subjected to mandatory medical examination at Safdarjung Hospital. The arrests follow their detention by Thai authorities in Phuket on December 11, after an Interpol Blue Corner Notice was issued against them. The Indian mission in Thailand had coordinated closely with local authorities, leading to their deportation to India and handover to Indian law enforcement agencies upon arrival.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate Twinkle Chawla

Click here to read more

3. [Rabri Devi Transfer Plea] A Delhi Court has dismissed an application filed by former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi seeking transfer of multiple cases being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the IRCTC hotel tender and alleged land-for-job scam. Rabri Devi has moved four separate petitions seeking transfer of four cases pending before Judge Gogne. These include proceedings arising out of the alleged IRCTC scam, the land-for-jobs case, and the money laundering cases initiated in connection with these matters. The cases arise out of investigations relating to alleged irregularities in the award of IRCTC hotel tenders and the purported land-for-job appointments during the tenure of her husband, former Union Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. After hearing submissions, the Rouse Avenue Court declined to grant the relief sought and rejected the transfer application. With this, the cases linked to the CBI and ED investigations will continue to be heard by the same court.

Case Title: Smt. Rabri Devi Vs. CBI & Ors.

Bench: Principal District and Sessions Judge Dinesh Bhatt

Click here, here and here to read more 

4. [Red Fort Blast case] A Delhi court has extended by seven days the custody of Bilal Naseer Malla with the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with the Red Fort blast case, while remanding co-accused Soyab to judicial custody for five days. The NIA produced both accused before the Patiala House Court on the expiry of their earlier four-day custody granted on December 15. The proceedings were held amid tight security arrangements, with media persons barred from entering the courtroom. Principal and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna allowed the investigating agency’s plea seeking further custodial interrogation of Dr Malla, noting the submissions made by the NIA. The Court directed that Malla remain in NIA custody for an additional seven days. At the same time, the Court ordered that Soyab, a resident of Dhauj village in Haryana’s Faridabad district, be sent to judicial custody till December 24. According to the NIA, Soyab was arrested for allegedly providing logistical support to Umar-un-Nabi, who is accused of carrying out the terror blast near the Red Fort. The agency has claimed that Soyab harboured Nabi and assisted him prior to the incident.

Bench: Principal District and Sessions judge Anju Bajaj Chandna

Click here to read more

5. [Congress Leader Alka Lamba] A Delhi Court has directed the framing of charges against former AAP leader and Congress functionary Alka Lamba in connection with a protest at Jantar Mantar last year, holding that there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed against her for obstructing public servants, assaulting police officials and disobeying prohibitory orders. In a detailed order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar of Rouse Avenue Court held that Alka Lamba would be tried under Sections 132, 221, 223(a) and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and dismissed her application seeking discharge under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The case arises from an incident dated July 29, 2024, when a protest was organised at Jantar Mantar in support of women’s reservation. According to the prosecution, the protest was called by Neetu Verma Soni, National President of the All India Mahila Congress, with Alka Lamba being the main speaker. Police claimed that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS had been promulgated in the area, restricting assemblies and movement beyond the designated protest zone.

Case Title: State v. Alka Lamba

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwani Panwar

Click here to read more 

6. [Fake Degree Case] A Delhi Court has denied anticipatory bail to a law graduate accused of obtaining enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) on the basis of a fake LLB degree and marksheet. Saket Court's Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta said that the allegations against the applicant, J Vasanthan were serious in nature and that the suspension order issued by BCD said that post verification his LLB Degree was found fake. Vasanthan told court that when he applied for registration he came in contact with one Arvind Panchal and Jagdish. He paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- in cash to them for his enrollment. Later on, when he was suspended he got to know that the marksheet filed alongwith the enrollment application was from Bundhelkhand University, Jhansi. He submitted that his certificates had been changed. Though he had handed over the certificates of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh to these persons but somehow the documents of Bundelkhand University, came to be on record.

Case Title: State vs Vasanthan 

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta

Click here to read more 

7. [ED moves Delhi High Court in National Herald Case] The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the recent order passed by the Trial Court, which did not take cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others. The ED has challenged the December 16 order passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne, who observed that while the ED is at liberty to continue further investigation, the Court cannot presently proceed to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint.The Trial Court had noted that the ED's case originates from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the subsequent summoning orders passed by a magistrate, rather than from a registered FIR. In such circumstances, the judge held, cognisance of the chargesheet could not be taken in the manner sought by the prosecution. The Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing had registered a fresh FIR against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, acting on a detailed complaint from the Enforcement Directorate that alleges a criminal conspiracy and a Rs 988 crore money laundering scheme in the National Herald matter.

Click here to read more 

8. [Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has advanced the hearing in an appeal filed by former Minister of State for External Affairs M J Akbar, challenging a trial court verdict that had acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in a criminal defamation case arising out of allegations made during the #MeToo movement. A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the application moved by Akbar seeking advancement of the hearing, which was earlier scheduled for May 7 next year. The Court has now listed the matter for hearing on March 16, 2026. Before the High Court, Akbar has challenged the trial court order dated February 17, 2021, by which Ramani was acquitted in the criminal defamation case. The High Court had admitted Akbar’s appeal in 2022, after it was filed in 2021. In his appeal, Akbar has argued that the trial court decided the criminal defamation case on the basis of surmises and conjectures and treated it as though it were a case of sexual harassment rather than defamation. The criminal defamation complaint was filed by Akbar in 2018 after Ramani accused him of sexual harassment during a job interview. Akbar alleged that her statements, made through tweets and articles published in platforms such as Vogue magazine, Firstpost and Twitter, were defamatory and aimed at damaging his reputation and political career. He contended that the allegations related to an incident nearly two decades old, for which no statutory complaint had been lodged at the relevant time, and claimed that the accusations were imaginary.

Case Title: M.J. Akbar vs Priya Ramani

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more 

9. [Hybrid Hearings amid Delhi Air Pollution] The Delhi High Court has permitted members of the Bar as well as parties appearing in person to avail the hybrid mode of appearance through video conferencing for matters listed before the Court, in view of the prevailing air pollution in the national capital. The decision was communicated through a circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court. Referring to the existing conditions, the circular stated, “In view of the prevailing weather conditions, I have been directed to convey that, if convenient, Members of the Bar and Parties-in-Person may avail the hybrid mode of appearance through video conferencing facility in their matters listed before the Hon’ble Courts.” The move comes as Delhi continues to reel under severe air pollution. On Monday, the national capital remained engulfed in a thick blanket of smog, with the Air Quality Index settling at 498, which falls within the ‘severe’ category.

Click here to read more 

10. [Mutual Consent Divorce] The Delhi High Court has ruled that couples seeking divorce by mutual consent are not mandatorily required to live separately for at least one year under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that the statutory separation period may be waived in appropriate cases by either the High Court or the Family Court, depending on the facts and circumstances. The ruling was issued by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Renu Bhatnagar while answering a reference made by a Division Bench of the Court.The reference sought guidance on the timeline prescribed for the presentation of a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and specifically on whether the statutory periods under Section 13B are mandatory or capable of being relaxed. The Court held that the statutory period of one year prescribed under Section 13B(1) of the Act as a prerequisite for presenting the first motion for divorce by mutual consent can be waived by invoking the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. It further clarified that waiver of the one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) does not bar waiver of the six-month “cooling-off” period prescribed under Section 13B(2) for filing the second motion, and that both waivers must be considered independently.

Case Title: SK vs SK

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Click here to read more