Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [February 2-8, 2026]

1. [Dhaula Kuan BMW Case] In the Dhaula Kuan BMW accident case that led to the death of Finance Ministry Deputy Secretary Navjot Singh, the accused, Gagan Preet Kaur Makkad, appeared before the Patiala House Courts, pursuant to a summons issued after the court took cognisance of the Delhi Police charge sheet. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg recorded her appearance and directed that a copy of the charge sheet be supplied to the accused in compliance with procedural requirements. The matter has now been listed for scrutiny of documents on February 20. The summons had been issued on January 23, after the court took cognisance of the offences alleged in the charge sheet. Advocate Gagan Bhatnagar appeared on behalf of Gagan Preet Kaur. The Delhi Police have invoked Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, along with Sections 281, 125(b) and 238(a) BNS. According to the prosecution, the offence of culpable homicide has been attracted on account of the accused’s alleged deliberate conduct following the accident, particularly the delay in providing timely medical assistance to the victim.

Click here to read more 

2. [Rajat Sharma Defamation Case] A Delhi court has summoned Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh in a criminal case filed by senior journalist and India TV Editor-in-Chief Rajat Sharma, alleging defamation, forgery and creation of false electronic evidence arising out of a televised election debate aired on June 4, 2024. In a detailed pre-summoning order, JMFC Devanshi Janmeja of Saket Court held that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the three accused under Sections 465, 469, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed a concerted attempt to harm Sharma’s reputation through a manipulated video circulated on social media. The complaint stemmed from a live television debate hosted by Sharma on India TV during the counting of the 2024 Lok Sabha election results. According to Sharma, during the broadcast he made remarks praising the Congress Party’s electoral performance. He alleged that Ragini Nayak, a Congress spokesperson, twisted his comments and later falsely accused him of using a derogatory and abusive slur against her during the live show.

Case Title: Rajat Sharma v. Ragini Nayak

Bench: JMFC Devanshi Janmeja

Click here to read more 

3. [Jantar Mantar Protest] A special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue has refused to interfere with the framing of criminal charges against former Congress MLA and women’s rights activist Alka Lamba in connection with a protest held at Jantar Mantar in July 2024, holding that the prosecution material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial and that the issues raised by the accused were matters to be tested during evidence. The court underscored that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not required to assess whether the allegations will ultimately result in conviction, but only whether a prima facie case exists warranting a full-fledged trial. The order was passed by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, who dismissed Lamba's criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s decision to frame charges under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant), 221 (obstructing a public servant), 223(a) (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), and 285 (causing obstruction or danger on a public way) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court upheld the earlier order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directing that charges be framed in relation to the protest that took place on 29.07.2024.

Case Title: Alka Lamba v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Dig Vinay Singh, Special Judge (PC Act), MPs/MLAs Cases, Rouse Avenue Court

Click here to read more 

4. [POCSO Case] The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a POCSO accused noting that the prosecutrix was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity and was involved in a romantic involvement with the accused. High Court noted that the present case was one where the prosecutrix had not been subjected to any violence or brutality, rather it was one of a romantic relationship. Before the High Court, a petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered under Sections 363/366A/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The complainant had alleged that his daughter, the prosecutrix aged about 14 1/2 years, was taken away by the accused, who also happened to be her friend.

Case Title: Varun Kumar Singh v. State (SHO Rajinder Nagar) 

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan

Click here to read more 

5. [Frozen Sperm] The Union Government has approached the Delhi High Court challenging an earlier judicial order that permitted the parents of a deceased, unmarried man to use his cryopreserved sperm for assisted reproduction, contending that Indian law does not recognise such reproductive material as inheritable property and that grandparents cannot be treated as beneficiaries under existing assisted reproduction statutes. The Centre has argued that permitting parents to use their deceased son’s frozen sperm to continue the family lineage raises serious legal, ethical and statutory concerns, particularly in the absence of explicit consent by the deceased for posthumous reproduction and in light of the regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy in India. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is seized of the government’s challenge to a 2024 order passed by a Single Judge, which had directed a private hospital to release the frozen semen of an unmarried man to his parents. The appeal filed by the Centre questions the legality of that direction and seeks reconsideration of the interpretation adopted by the Single Judge. The case arises from a plea filed by the parents of a young man who had cryopreserved his semen at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital prior to undergoing medical treatment. Following his death, the parents sought release of the frozen semen, stating that they wished to use it for reproduction in order to continue their son’s lineage.

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more 

6. [Yamuna Pollution] The Delhi High Court set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the industrial unit namely M/s Kanwarji Raj Kumar, run by one Raj Kumar Gupta in a case concerning the pollution of River Yamuna. A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while upholding the conviction of Gupta, set aside the order on sentence, but in addition to the fine of ₹2 lakhs already deposited, directed him to pay a further fine of ₹10 lakhs. "The petitioner is also directed to undertake plantation of 100 trees in coordination with the Government of NCT of Delhi, through its Forest Department, in and around Chandni Chowk area or any other location to be identified by the said Department. It is directed that each tree shall have a minimum of two-years‘ nursery age and a trunk height of six feet. The petitioner shall file a compliance affidavit along with proof of plantation before this Court within a period of three months from date", the court further ordered. Gupta was operating his industrial unit without obtaining the requisite consent and was discharging untreated trade effluent into the public sewer and he was thus held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 24 and 25 read with Section 26 of the Water Act.

Case Title: Mr. Raj Kumar Guota v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr. 

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more 

7. [Law must hate the sin, not the sinner] The Delhi High Court has delivered a detailed and philosophically grounded judgment examining the constitutional limits of prolonged incarceration and the manner in which remission powers are exercised by the State. A single judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while allowing the petition seeking premature release, scrutinised the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting remission and held that such decisions must reflect genuine application of mind to reformative factors, mandated under the applicable policy. Also Read - Delhi HC Seeks Union’s Response on Plea Flagging Section 377 Gap in BNS, Lists Matter for Feb 20 The Court examined whether repeated rejection of remission solely on the heinousness of a crime committed over two decades ago aligns with constitutional principles and the reformative theory of punishment. The petition was filed by a life convict who has been in custody since 2003 following his conviction for rape and robbery committed while he was serving as a member of the President’s Body Guard. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life in 2009, and his conviction was upheld in appeal in 2012. Also Read - ‘No Proof, Only Conjectures’: Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Civil Judge Accused of Abusing Minor Over the course of more than two decades of incarceration, the petitioner earned multiple commendations and certificates of recognition for good conduct, diligence, and discipline in jail. He participated in vocational, spiritual, yoga, and meditation programmes, availed parole and furlough on several occasions without adverse reports, and was repeatedly recommended for premature release by probation authorities.

Case Title: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more