Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [December 8-14, 2025]

1. [Sonia Gandhi Electoral Roll Case] A Session court has issued notice to Congress leader and MP Sonia Gandhi in a revision petition challenging the Magistrate’s dismissal of a complaint over her inclusion in the 1980–81 electoral rolls. The matter will now be taken up on January 6. On September 11, a Delhi Court dismissed a criminal complaint seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the 1980 electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship. The complaint invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging cheating, forgery, and false declaration. The informant relied on a photocopy of an electoral roll extract and news reports to claim that Gandhi was registered as a voter in New Delhi in 1980, despite being granted Indian citizenship only in 1983 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more 

2. [Kartavya Path demonstration] A Delhi Court has granted bail to ten protesters arrested in connection with a demonstration at Kartavya Path, where slogans were allegedly raised in support of slain Maoist commander Madvi Hidma. The Court was hearing the bail pleas of twelve accused. Judicial Magistrate Aridaman Singh Cheema granted bail to Ahan Arun Upadhyay, Sameer Faiyaz, Vishnu Tiwari, Satyam Yadav, Prakash Raj Gupta, Shreshth Mukund, Banka Akash, Aatreya Chaudhary, Tanya Shrivastav and Abhinash Satyapati on a bond of Rs 15,000 each. The Court noted that all key digital evidence; including CCTV footage, video recordings of the protest and the accused persons’ mobile phones, has already been seized and is with the police, reducing the risk of tampering. The Court observed that investigators had found “nothing” indicating the protesters’ membership in any radical organisation linked to Naxalites. It added that “no purpose shall be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody,” while imposing reasonable conditions to prevent absconding or interference with the probe.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class Aridaman Singh Cheema

Click here to read more 

3. [Umar Khalid] A Delhi Court has granted interim bail to Delhi riots conspiracy accused Umar Khalid so he can attend his sister’s wedding later this month. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court allowed Khalid to remain on bail from December 16 to December 29. The Court noted that the request was made for a genuine family event and permitted his temporary release on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The order restricts Khalid from using social media and directs him to meet only family members, relatives and friends during the bail period. He must remain at his home or at venues where the marriage ceremonies are scheduled. Khalid had originally sought bail from December 14 to December 29. His sister’s wedding is set for December 27. Khalid is charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2020 conspiracy case, along with Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and several others. His regular bail plea is pending before the Supreme Court after being rejected earlier by both the Delhi High Court and the trial court.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai

Click here and here to read more 

4. [Fake Number Plate case] A Delhi Court has remanded Chaitanyanand Saraswati to judicial custody in a fake diplomatic number plate case, a day after he was placed in police custody. The Patiala House Courts took up the matter after the Delhi Police formally arrested him while he was already lodged in jail in a separate molestation case. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar allowed the police plea and sent Saraswati to judicial custody, noting that the investigation in the cheating and forgery case, registered under various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, was still underway. Police had sought 14 days of judicial custody, citing the need to secure evidence linked to the alleged use of a fake diplomatic registration plate. The Court had earlier issued a production warrant on November 27 to bring Saraswati before the magistrate in the cheating case. He was subsequently placed under formal arrest by the Delhi Police. In the parallel molestation case, the Court has already taken cognisance of the chargesheet filed against Saraswati and four co-accused, including three women. Saraswati was first arrested on September 28 in Agra. The charge sheet, filed on November 26, invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, including sections 75(2), 79, 232, 351(3), and 238(b).

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar

Click here to read more 

5. [Birch Nightclub Fire; Luthra Brothers] A Delhi Court has refused to grant transit anticipatory bail to Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the Goa nightclub Birch by Romeo Lane, where a fire on December 6 claimed 25 lives. Additional Sessions Judge Vandana of Rohini Court held that the “nature of offence, prima facie, is grave and serious” and that the applicants’ conduct did not justify protection from arrest. The Court said it was “not inclined” to extend relief given the allegations and circumstances surrounding the brothers’ departure from India. The Luthras argued they faced an imminent threat to their lives, but the court noted they had produced no material to substantiate that claim. Medical documents from 2011 and 2018 submitted to show seizure disorder and hypertension were dismissed as outdated and irrelevant, with the court observing that even the defence had said the conditions did not impede travel or business operations. Another factor was the expiry of several licences annexed to the application. Goa Police told the court the nightclub was being run on a trade licence obtained from a panchayat, which had lapsed in 2023.

Case Title: State v. Gaurav Luthra & Anr.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Vandana

Click here, here and here to read more 

6. [Ajay Gupta; Transit Remand] A Delhi Court has granted a 36-hour transit remand of Ajay Gupta to the Goa Police in connection with the deadly Goa club fire that claimed 25 lives. Gupta, arrested in Delhi earlier in the day, was produced before the Saket Court, where Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vinod Joshi allowed the transit remand and directed his prompt production before the competent court in Goa. The Court also directed the investigating team to ensure Gupta receives necessary medical care during transit. The Goa Police sought an extended 36-hour window citing travel disruptions stemming from the ongoing Indigo crisis. While Gupta is now headed to Goa for further proceedings, the spotlight remains on co-accused Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra, who fled to Thailand soon after the fire. During a separate hearing before the Rohini Court, Delhi Police informed that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) had already been issued against the brothers by a Goa court. Opposing their plea for Anticipatory Bail, the State argued the duo was deliberately evading the probe and did not deserve interim relief.

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vinod Joshi

Click here to read more 

7. [Indigo Airlines] The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Central government over the large-scale disruption of IndiGo flights, asking how the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the point where thousands of passengers were left stranded at airports across the country. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation seeking relief for affected passengers. The plea has urged the Union government to ensure adequate ground support as well as timely refunds amid the airline’s operational breakdown. “We appreciate the steps taken by the Ministry and the DGCA. However, what bothers us is how such a situation was allowed to precipitate, leaving lakhs of passengers unattended at airports,” the bench remarked. The judges added that the impact of such a crisis “is not confined merely to inconvenience to passengers, but also affects the country’s economy, as fast and efficient passenger movement is an essential component of economic functioning today.”

Case Title: Akhil Rana & anr v Union of India & ors

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more 

8. [Salman Khan] The Delhi High Court has directed several social media intermediaries to treat Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s plea seeking protection of his personality rights as a formal complaint under the Information Technology Rules and to take action within three days. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who issued the direction while hearing Khan’s plea, which asks the Court to restrain social media platforms, websites and online sellers from using his name, pictures, voice or any element of his identity without his consent. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Khan, submitted that Apple, an AI chatbot, and several e-commerce platforms have facilitated the misuse of the actor’s personality rights. He further took exception to fan accounts circulating digitally altered images of Khan without his consent. After considering the submissions, the Court said it would issue an interim order against those platforms and sellers that are not social media intermediaries but are allegedly offering unauthorised merchandise featuring Khan’s image or likeness.

Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar v. Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

9. [Copyright Dispute] The Delhi High Court has closed a copyright dispute brought by Bignet Solutions LLP after Novex Communications told the court that it does not claim copyright over sound recordings released before 1965 and does not require anyone to take a licence for using them. Bignet had moved the court seeking clarity before hosting a private event on October 12, 2025. The company planned to play a list of fifteen sound recordings, all stated in the plaint to be published before 1965. In its suit, Bignet said these songs had already entered the public domain under the Copyright Act and therefore no permission was legally needed. The issue arose when the event venue asked Bignet to obtain a licence from Novex before the event could go ahead. According to the plaintiff, the company approached Novex and received a fee quote, after which it rechecked the copyright term and discovered that the particular songs had already crossed the protection period. Bignet also said its original email to Novex had included the playlist and argued that Novex should have clarified upfront that no licence was required. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the event had already taken place without disruption and that the plaintiff had confirmed that only the listed songs were played. Recording Novex’s statement, the court found that the original dispute no longer survived. In the order, the court observed, “In view of the aforesaid statement of the defendant categorically stating that it asserts no claims in pre-1965 sound recordings and the fact that the plaintiff’s event for 12.10.2025 has been held smoothly, this Court is of the opinion that the cause of action on which the suit was filed stands satisfied.”

Case Title: Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt Ltd. B

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh

Click here to read more

10. [J&K Deputy CM] The Delhi High Court has directed Jammu and Kashmir Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary to implead the individuals responsible for uploading allegedly defamatory content about him on social media, in his ongoing defamation suit. Justice Amit Bansal was considering Choudhary’s request to advance the hearing date, which was originally scheduled for January 13, 2026. The application was allowed and the matter has now been listed for hearing on December 16. During the proceedings, counsel appearing for Meta was directed to provide Choudhary with the IP addresses and basic subscriber details of the accounts that uploaded the disputed content. The platform has been asked to supply the information within three days. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar, appearing for Choudhary, sought the removal of the impugned material, stating that the videos depict the Deputy Chief Minister alongside a woman in a manner intended to damage his reputation. 

Case Title: Surinder Kumar Choudhary v. Google LLC & Ors

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more