Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [January 5-11, 2026]

1. [Red Fort Blast Case] A Delhi court has remanded Yasir Ahmed Dar, one of the accused in the Red Fort blast case, to judicial custody for 11 days till January 16. Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of Patiala House Court passed the order after Dar was physically produced before the Court following the expiry of his National Investigation Agency (NIA) custody. The Court had earlier, on December 26, extended Dar’s NIA custody by 10 days. Dar was arrested by the NIA on December 18 and is the ninth accused to be taken into custody in connection with the November 10 blast outside the Red Fort. The explosion, caused by a car laden with explosives, claimed 15 lives and left several others injured. According to the NIA, Dar is a resident of Jammu and Kashmir and was a close associate of Umar-un-Nabi, the suicide bomber who allegedly drove the explosive-laden vehicle that detonated near the historic monument. The agency has alleged that Dar played an active role in the larger conspiracy behind the attack.

Bench: Principal District and Sessions judge Anju Bajaj Chandna

Click here to read more 

2. [Sonia Gandhi] A Delhi court at Rouse Avenue Courts has adjourned till February 7 a revision petition filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi challenging a magistrate court order that refused to direct registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. The petition arises from allegations that Sonia Gandhi’s name was wrongly included in the electoral rolls for 1980–81, nearly three years before she acquired Indian citizenship. Tripathi has alleged that such inclusion amounted to an illegality warranting criminal investigation. The revision petition was listed before the Rouse Avenue Courts, which deferred further hearing on the matter and fixed February 7 as the next date. Earlier, a magistrate court had declined Tripathi’s request seeking directions to the police for registration of an FIR against the former Congress president. Challenging that order, Tripathi approached the sessions court, contending that the magistrate failed to appreciate the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a police probe.

Click here to read more 

3. [Criminal Defamation] A Delhi court took cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by AAP leader and former minister Satyendar Jain against BJP MLA Karnail Singh, over allegedly false and defamatory remarks made during a television interview. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Court said there were “sufficient grounds to proceed” against Singh and ordered the issuance of process (notice) to the BJP leader. The Court observed that the complaint established the key elements of defamation; imputation, publication, and intent to cause harm. “As long as the proposed accused admits that he gave the interview to a media person, which was heard by others and even published on a national news channel to be seen by the public, there are clearly statements and publications. The mental element to cause harm shall be subject matter of trial,” the Court said in its 19-page order.

Case Title: Satyender Jain v. Karnail Singh

Bench: Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Paras Dalal

Click here to read more 

4. [Land for Jobs Scam] A Delhi Court has framed charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, son Tejashwi Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav, Misa Bharti and several others accused in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case linked to the alleged land-for-jobs scam. While passing the order, Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court passed the order. The case arises from a CBI probe into allegations that land parcels were transferred to members of the Yadav family and their associates in return for Group-D appointments in the Railways between 2004 and 2009. Further proceedings in the matter are scheduled to continue before the trial court. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge-sheeted Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Misa Bharti, Tejashwi Yadav, Hema Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav and others, alleging that jobs in the Indian Railways were given in exchange for land parcels transferred to the family during Lalu Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister. The Court had earlier reserved its order on September 11 after hearing extensive arguments from both sides.

Case Title: CBI v. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more 

5. [Turkman Gate Violence] A Delhi Court has remanded eight accused to 12 days of judicial custody in connection with the violence that erupted during an anti-encroachment demolition drive near the Faiz-e-Elahi mosque in the Turkman Gate area. The accused: Afaan, Adil, Shahnawaz, Amir Hamza, Ubadullah, Atharr, Mohammad Imran and Mohammad Imran, were produced before Judicial Magistrate Sayesha Chada of Tis Hazari Court who remanded them to judicial custody till January 21. The Court noted that the grounds of arrest had been duly supplied and observed that, prima facie, the presence of the accused at the site of violence was apparent. During the hearing, five other accused: Mohammad Arib, Kashif, Adnan, Mohammad Kaif and Sameer, sought bail. Their counsel alleged that the accused had been assaulted by jail staff within the jail premises. Taking note of the allegations, the Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on the bail applications and also directed the jail superintendent to place the medical records of all five accused on record before the next date of hearing.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Sayesha Chaddha

Click here to read more

6. [Transfer of Judges] The Delhi High Court recently flagged the issue of where reserved judgments remaining unpronounced due to transfer of judges. "Such an approach, if accepted, may create a precedent where matters in which judgments have already been reserved are, after transfer of the Presiding Officer, sent back to the successor court on tenuous grounds, thereby unsettling the settled procedure governing pronouncement of reserved judgments and introducing avoidable uncertainty into the judicial process", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed. Notably, a petition was filed before the High Court seeking transfer of a case, arising out of FIR No. 207/2019, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [hereafter „MCOCA‟], from the Court of the ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Predecessor Judge, who was presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the limited purpose of pronouncement of judgment.

Case Title: Parvesh Mann v. State NCT of Delhi 

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more 

7. [BJP Leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam] The Delhi High Court has directed the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party to remove social media posts that allegedly linked BJP National General Secretary and former Rajya Sabha MP Dushyant Kumar Gautam to the 2022 Ankita Bhandari murder case. The order was passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna while hearing a defamation suit filed by Gautam against several individuals and entities accused of posting and circulating defamatory content portraying him as a “VIP” allegedly involved in the Ankita Bhandari case. Observing that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, Justice Pushkarna held, “The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused if the defendants are not restrained from posting the defamatory content.” The Court also extended the interim restraint to other persons and organisations named in the suit, including Urmila Sanawar and the Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee.

Case Title: Dushyant Kumar Gautam v. Urmila Sana War & Ors.

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Click here to read more 

8. [Unsafe e-rickshaws] The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking strict action against uninsured and unsafe e-rickshaws operating across the capital, following the death of an eight-year-old girl in a road accident in northeast Delhi. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter and issued notice to all the respondents. The PIL has been filed by Manish Parashar, the father of the child, through advocates Naveen Bamel and Gaurav Arya. The plea flags growing public safety concern arising from unchecked and poorly regulated e-rickshaws on Delhi’s roads. According to the plea, Parashar’s daughter, Akshi Parashar was on her way to school on August 27, 2025, travelling in an e-rickshaw near Krishna Gali No. 6 in Maujpur’s Jafrabad area, when the vehicle overturned after being driven at high speed and in a reckless manner. The e-rickshaw allegedly lacked mandatory third-party insurance, was structurally unfit, and was operating on a stretch where such vehicles were prohibited. The child was crushed under the vehicle and died on the spot, while the driver fled the scene.

Case Title: Sh. Manish Parashar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

9. [Jama Masjid] The Delhi High Court has ordered a probe into encroachments in and around Jama Masjid, saying that “if any illegal construction is found, the law must take its course." Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has been directed to undertake a comprehensive survey of constructions in and around the Jama Masjid premises within two months and initiate statutory action for the removal of encroachments or unauthorised structures found during the exercise. "We direct the appellate authorities of the MCD to take into consideration the averments made in this petition, verify the same, and conduct a survey within two months. If any illegal construction is found, appropriate action as warranted under law shall be taken", the order reads. A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia has issued said direction in a petition filed by residents of Old Delhi. High Court was told that public land was being misused for commercial and non-permissible activities, including illegal parking facilities, hospitals, hawking zones, and other commercial stalls, in violation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and allied municipal regulations.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

10. [Interim Maintenance] The Delhi High Court has held that while deciding interim maintenance, a wife cannot be presumed to be earning or capable of maintaining herself in the absence of evidence. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that had granted her ₹2,500 per month as interim maintenance. The Court noted that the husband’s claim that the wife was working and earning could not be accepted without proof. It observed that a mere bald assertion that the wife is employed, without even prima facie evidence, is of no assistance to the husband at the interim stage. The Court further recorded that the woman had studied only up to Class 11 and there was no documentary material to support the allegation that she was working as a nursery teacher. According to the case, the parties were married on June 27, 2021, as per Muslim rites and ceremonies in Uttar Pradesh. No child was born from the marriage. The wife alleged that soon after the wedding, she was subjected to cruelty by the husband and his family members on account of insufficient dowry. She further claimed that she was forcibly turned out of her matrimonial home after being assaulted.

Case Title: X v. Y

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more