Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [January 26-February 1, 2026]

1. [Kunal Kamra] A Delhi Court has refused to direct the registration of a fresh FIR against comedian Kunal Kamra over a satirical video targeting Maharashtra’s political realignments, holding that criminal law cannot be invoked to police humour, dissent, or political criticism. The order was passed while deciding an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking court-monitored directions for registration of an FIR against Kamra in relation to his video titled “Naya Bharat”, uploaded in March 2025. The video lampoons political defections in Maharashtra and contains sharp commentary aimed, inter alia, at Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. At the outset, JMFC Himanshu Sehloth of Rohini Court framed the case as one situated “at the intersection of individual freedom of expression and the State’s duty to maintain public order,” emphasising that its role was not to adjudge taste or civility but to examine whether the coercive machinery of the State could lawfully intervene. Describing freedom of speech as “the oxygen of democratic life,” the Court warned that the law must “breathe with it, not smother it.”

Case Title: Sandeep Chaudhary v. Kunal Kamra

Bench: JMFC Himanshu Sehloth

Click here to read more 

2. [Medha Patkar Defamation Case] A Delhi court has acquitted incumbent Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena in a defamation case filed by social activist Medha Patkar over two decades ago, holding that the allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Raghav Sharma of Saket court passed the order, granting Saxena the benefit of doubt and observing that the material placed on record did not establish defamation. “The allegations are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You are acquitted,” the Court said, as Saxena appeared through video conferencing. The case stemmed from an advertisement published on November 10, 2000, by the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), which was headed by Saxena as its president at the time. Patkar had alleged that the contents of the advertisement, which reproduced certain documents linked to the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), were false and defamatory.

Case Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena

Bench: JMFC Raghav Sharma

Click here to read more 

3. [Passport Fraud Case] Delhi’s Patiala House Court has formally framed charges against businessman Sushil Ansal in a case linked to alleged misdeclaration under the Passports Act, directing that prosecution evidence be recorded in the matter. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Mridul Gupta framed charges against Ansal for offences under Sections 420, 177, and 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court listed the matter for recording of prosecution evidence on April 25 and issued summons to two prosecution witnesses. Ansal appeared before the Court through video conferencing and denied the allegations levelled against him. The case relates to allegations that Ansal concealed material facts regarding his conviction and the pendency of criminal cases against him while applying for renewal of his passport in 2013 and again in 2018. The prosecution has alleged that these concealments and misrepresentations induced the passport authorities to issue travel documents that would otherwise not have been granted. Ansal has challenged the order framing charges before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has issued notice on his petition and listed it for hearing on February 20.

Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Mridul Gupta

Click here to read more 

4. [PMLA] A Delhi court has dismissed two complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly ignoring summons issued in connection with the Delhi excise policy investigation, holding that no incriminating material was made out against him. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal of the Rouse Avenue Court ruled that the ED had failed to establish grounds for proceeding against Kejriwal under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court deferred further consideration of the matter to February 7. The ED had approached the Court in February 2024, seeking action against Kejriwal for not appearing before the agency despite five summons issued during the course of its money laundering probe linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021–22. The agency alleged non-compliance with statutory summons requiring personal appearance and cooperation in the investigation. The ED’s case stemmed from a money laundering probe initiated on August 22, 2022, following a First Information Report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022. The CBI case was based on a complaint by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena alleging irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement (ED) v. Arvind Kejriwal

Bench: ACJM Paras Dalal

Click here to read more 

5. [Engineer Rashid] A Delhi Court has granted custody parole to jailed Lok Sabha MP Engineer Rashid, allowing him to attend the upcoming Budget Session of Parliament beginning January 28. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma of Patiala House Court passed the order permitting Rashid’s presence in Parliament under armed police escort, subject to the conditions earlier imposed by the court, including bearing travel and security-related expenses. Custody parole allows a prisoner to visit a specified place under continuous supervision of police personnel and does not amount to release from judicial custody. During the hearing, Rashid’s counsel, Advocate Vikhyat Oberoi informed the Court that an appeal filed by the MP challenging the condition requiring him to bear travel costs is pending before the Delhi High Court. The trial court, however, allowed Rashid to attend the session while keeping the existing conditions intact.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma

Click here to read more 

6. [2020 Delhi Riots Case] A Delhi Court has denied regular bail to former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that there was no reason to depart from its earlier finding that a prima facie case exists against him. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts dismissed Hussain’s application filed under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court noted that Hussain’s previous bail plea had already been rejected on March 30, 2024, after concluding that the allegations against him appeared prima facie true and that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) applied. The Court observed that while the Supreme Court, in its January 5, 2026 order, granted bail to five co-accused persons, it simultaneously rejected bail pleas of other accused allegedly identified as key conspirators. In these circumstances, the trial court said it could not take a different view on Hussain’s case. “The most important aspect before the Court now is that this Court has already dismissed the earlier bail application of the applicant… giving finding that the allegations against the applicant are prima-facie true,” the Court noted. It further held that despite the Supreme Court’s order granting relief to certain co-accused, the earlier judicial finding against Hussain continued to operate.

Case Title: Tahir Hussain v. State

Bench: ASJ Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more 

7. [Hate Speech against PM Modi] A Delhi Court has issued notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and the Delhi Police in a revision petition challenging the rejection of a criminal complaint alleging hate speech during an election rally in Karnataka in 2023. The revision petition seeks action against the Congress leader for his 2023 remark comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideologies of the BJP and RSS to a “poisonous snake". Special Judge Jitendra Singh at the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by Advocate Ravindra Gupta, who has sought setting aside of a November 11, 2025 order of the Tis Hazari Court that had declined to take cognisance of the complaint against Kharge. The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on February 27 and directed that the trial court record be summoned before the next date of hearing. The revision arises from a complaint alleging that Kharge made hate speech during an election rally held in Naregal, Karnataka, in April 2023. The complainant, who identified himself as a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had alleged that Kharge made derogatory and defamatory remarks against the BJP, RSS and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Case Title: Ravindra Gupta v. State & Anr.

Bench: Special Judge Jitendra Singh

Click here to read more 

8. [Chinese Visa Scam] The Delhi High Court has sought the CBI's response on Congress MP Karti Chidambaram's petition in the Chinese visa scam case. Justice Manoj Jain refused to stay the trial court proceedings at this stage. High Court took up the case on January 28 after Justice Girish Kathpalia had on January 23 recused himself from hearing the Congress MP's petition. Earlier Justices Swarana Kanta Sharma and Anup J Bhambani had also recused themselves from hearing the case. Chidambaram has approached the High Court against the framing of charges by the Rouse Avenue Court in connection with the alleged Chinese visa scam. He has argued that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind to the material and documents on record, completely ignoring evidence and statements of witnesses that demonstrate the absence of criminality. Special Judge (CBI) Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court directed that charges be framed against seven accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy, while discharging one accused, Chetan Shrivastava, from the case. On December 23, 2025 the order was passed in a case arising out of allegations that bribes were paid to facilitate the grant of visas to Chinese nationals employed by a power company in 2011. The alleged acts took place during the tenure of Karti Chidambaram’s father, P. Chidambaram, as the Union Home Minister. The Central Bureau of Investigation had filed its chargesheet in October 2024, naming Karti Chidambaram and others for their alleged role in irregularly securing visas for Chinese nationals in exchange for illegal gratification.

Case Title: Karti Chidambaram vs. CBI

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more 

9. [Sameer Wankhede] The Delhi High Court has rejected a civil defamation suit filed by Sameer Wankhede against multiple defendants including production houses, digital streaming platforms and social media intermediaries, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that where alleged online defamation occurs across jurisdictions including the place where the defendants reside, the suit must necessarily be instituted at that place. The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who held that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court, while granting liberty to seek appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC. The Court further clarified that since jurisdiction itself failed, other issues including merits did not arise for consideration. "In the context of online defamation, where it is possible for a plaintiff to plead wrong done across the country, an unqualified application of Section 19 would permit a plaintiff to institute proceedings in any forum of its choosing; Such an interpretation would defeat the object of the provision and open the door to forum shopping, libel tourism, and luxury litigation”, Court said. The Court noted at the threshold that maintainability and territorial jurisdiction must be examined before considering interim relief, and courts are empowered to return or reject a plaint even suo motu where jurisdiction is lacking. It observed that subjecting parties to litigation in a forum lacking jurisdiction would be improper, particularly where defendants raise specific objections at the threshold stage.

Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt Ltd & Ors

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more 

10. [IIM Jammu] The Delhi High Court has held that a non-signatory beneficiary institution can be impleaded as a necessary party in arbitration-related proceedings if its role in the execution and performance of the contract is substantial and direct. Allowing an application filed by the Indian Institute of Management Jammu, the Court ruled that its extensive involvement in the construction of its permanent campus rendered its presence essential for the effective adjudication of disputes arising between the contractor and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The order was passed in proceedings initiated by M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against CPWD. IIM Jammu sought impleadment as a respondent, contending that although it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was the principal beneficiary of the project, had financed the entire construction, and was deeply involved in day-to-day supervision and decision-making throughout the execution of the works.

Case Title: M/S Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. CPWD

Bench: Joint Registrar (Judicial) Sh. Deepak Dabad 

Click here to read more