Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [March 16-22, 2026]

1. [2020 Delhi Riots; Tahir Hussain] A Delhi court has refused to grant interim bail to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in a case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, but directed authorities to ensure that his required surgery is conducted within 15 days. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Court passed the order while hearing Hussain’s plea seeking one-month interim bail on medical grounds. Hussain, who has been in judicial custody since April 6, 2020, had sought interim bail from March 20 to April 20, citing an inguinal hernia that requires surgical intervention and post-operative care. While declining bail, the Court disposed of the application with specific directions to the authorities. “Considering these facts and circumstances, the application at hand is disposed of… the surgery of the applicant, as required, shall be conducted within 15 days from today, unless some medical complications result in delay,” the Court ordered. The Court further directed that Hussain be provided adequate post-operative care both in the hospital and in jail, in accordance with medical advice. During the hearing, Hussain’s counsel argued that delays in hospital visits and diagnostic procedures, owing to an overburdened system, had prevented timely treatment. It was also urged that he be allowed to undergo surgery at a hospital and with a doctor of his choice. The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, contending that Hussain’s condition was stable and not life-threatening. It was submitted that the surgery in question was elective in nature and did not warrant interim bail.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Parveen Singh

Click here to read more 

2. [Land for Jobs Case] A Delhi court has rejected pleas filed by former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife, former Chief Minister Rabri Devi, seeking access to documents not relied upon by the prosecution in the land-for-jobs case. Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts dismissed the applications, along with similar pleas by other accused, holding that there is no automatic right for the defence to obtain such unrelied documents at this stage of trial. The Court clarified that the scheme of criminal trial requires the prosecution to first lead evidence based on documents it relies upon, and that unrelied documents cannot be demanded as a precondition for cross-examination. “In the absence of even a fledgling defence or a minimum projection of his defence, the accused cannot be permitted to introduce wanton documents into trial,” the Court observed, adding that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if such requests were declined. The case stems from allegations by the Central Bureau of Investigation that during his tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, Lalu Prasad Yadav facilitated appointments to Group D posts in the Railways in exchange for land parcels transferred to his family at nominal prices. According to the agency, several job aspirants or their relatives allegedly transferred land in Patna and other locations to the Yadav family or associated entities as part of a quid pro quo arrangement, without any formal recruitment process.

Case Title: CBI Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more 

3. [Antrix-Devas Case] A Delhi court has returned the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the high-profile Antrix-Devas corruption case, holding that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. Special Judge (CBI) Atul Krishna Agarwal of Rouse Avenue Court passed the order on March 11 while allowing an application moved by Veena Sri Ram Rao, former Additional Secretary of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), who is among the accused in the case. Rao had sought transfer of the case to a competent court, contending that the alleged conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code took place in Bengaluru and not in Delhi. Agreeing with the submission, the court observed that a perusal of the chargesheet and accompanying documents clearly indicated that the majority of acts leading to the alleged offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru. “Having considered all the facts and case laws on the point, in my considered view, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present case/offences therein, since the substantial portion of the acts leading to the present offences, have not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi,” the court held. Accordingly, the court returned the chargesheet to the CBI, granting liberty to the investigating agency to present it before the appropriate court having jurisdiction, likely in Bengaluru.

Case Title: CBI v. K.R.S. Murthi & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal

Click here to read more 

4. [Hardeep Puri's daughter] The Delhi High Court has directed the takedown of allegedly defamatory content linking Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while clarifying that the order will operate only within India for the time being. A single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order in a defamation suit filed by Himayani Puri seeking removal of online content and damages of ₹10 crore. The Court restrained the defendants, including social media platforms and unidentified persons (John Doe parties), from publishing or circulating any defamatory material against the plaintiff. It also directed that URLs and links flagged in the suit be taken down within 24 hours, failing which intermediaries must block access to such content. “The present injunction order will operate within the Indian domain with respect to the video/content uploaded from IP addresses within India… In so far as URLs/links uploaded from outside India, the defendants are directed to ensure that they are blocked in India,” the Court ordered. Justice Pushkarna noted that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience lay with her. The Court further held that irreparable harm would be caused if the publication of such content was not restrained. However, the Court declined to pass a global takedown order at this stage, noting submissions by intermediaries such as Google and Meta that the question of whether Indian courts can order global blocking of online content is currently pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.

5. [Uttam Nagar; MCD Demolition] The Delhi High Court has closed a batch of petitions after the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assured the Court that it would not carry out demolition of certain residential properties in Uttam Nagar without issuing prior notice. Justice Amit Bansal recorded the statement made by the civic body and disposed of the pleas filed by residents who had approached the Court fearing immediate demolition of their homes following a recent clash in the area. The assurance was given during the hearing of petitions filed by Jarina, the mother of one of the accused, and Shahnaz, whose children were questioned by the police in connection with the incident. The petitioners had expressed apprehension that their houses in JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar, could be demolished without following due process of law. Senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, submitted before the Court that no action would be taken against the properties in question without issuing prior notice to the occupants.

Case Title: Jarina v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

6. [Arnab Goswami] The Indian National Congress has approached the Delhi High Court seeking damages of Rs. 2 crore from television anchor Arnab Goswami over an allegedly defamatory broadcast claiming that the party operated an office in Istanbul. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday before Justice Mini Pushkarna. According to the plaint, the impugned statements were made during a programme aired on Republic TV in May 2025, where Goswami allegedly asserted that the Congress maintained an office in Turkey. The party has categorically denied this claim. The Congress has submitted that the broadcast was widely circulated across social media platforms, thereby amplifying the allegation and causing reputational harm. The controversy arose in a politically sensitive backdrop, during the period of Operation Sindoor and heightened tensions following Turkey’s expression of support for Pakistan. During the programme, Goswami is stated to have questioned Congress supporters about the party’s alleged presence in Turkey. He further suggested that such a presence reflected a compromise of national interest and implied alignment with adversarial nations. Challenging these statements, the Congress has contended that they were false and defamatory, portraying the party in a manner capable of undermining public trust.

Case Title: Indian National Congress (INC) v. Arnab Goswami And Ors.

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Click here to read more

7. [POCSO Cases] The Delhi High Court has emphasised that the criminal justice system must adopt a sensitive and balanced approach when dealing with child witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while hearing a petition filed by three minor victims who challenged the issuance of bailable warrants against one of them by a trial court after she failed to appear during proceedings. During the hearing, the High Court was informed that one of the minor victims had been called to appear before the court as many as eleven times merely for the purpose of hearing arguments on a bail application. The Court observed that such repeated appearances were contrary to the spirit of the legal safeguards intended to protect child victims during criminal proceedings. The Court noted that repeated summoning of a child victim to court can cause significant psychological distress and may lead to re traumatisation. “…it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the victims were called upon to appear before the Court on about eleven occasions only for the purpose of hearing arguments on the bail application. Such repeated appearance of the victims was clearly not in consonance with the spirit of the directions issued in XXXX v. State,” the Court observed.

Case Title: Minor Child K & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more 

8. [Al Falah University Chairman] The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order that granted two weeks of interim bail to Al Falah University group chairman Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui in a money laundering case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard the matter and sought a response from Siddiqui on the agency’s challenge to the order. The High Court listed the matter for further hearing on March 19. The Enforcement Directorate has argued that the trial court’s decision granting temporary relief to Siddiqui was legally flawed and failed to take into account several crucial aspects, including his alleged involvement in the Red Fort blast case. Appearing for the agency, counsel Zoheb Hossain contended that the trial court granted interim bail primarily on the ground of the medical condition of Siddiqui’s wife, who is undergoing treatment for stage four ovarian cancer. However, he argued that the circumstances cited to justify the relief were incorrect and that the order was contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. According to the ED, the trial court also relied on an assumption that the couple’s children could not travel to India due to the ongoing crisis in West Asia. The agency argued that this finding was factually incorrect. Hossain told the court that flights between the United Arab Emirates and India were operating normally and that a large number of Indians had returned to the country recently.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate vs. Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Click here to read more 

9. [Digital Arrest; Cyber Fraud] The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a woman of ₹1.3 crore through an elaborate cyber fraud scheme in which the victim was falsely placed under what is commonly described as “digital arrest”. A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the allegations disclose a serious instance of cyber-crime in which technological tools were used to deceive and extort money from the victim. The court noted that the case reflects a growing trend of online frauds where individuals impersonate law enforcement officials and intimidate victims into transferring money under the threat of legal action. “…….the allegations against the applicant relate to a serious instance of cyber fraud involving the modus operandi of so called ‘digital arrest’. Such offences are carried out through technological means to deceive and extort money from unsuspecting victims, as remarked by the Supreme Court. Such cases are increasingly being reported across the country,” the court said in its order. The accused, Oma Kant Gupta, had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report registered last year on the complaint of a woman who alleged that she had been defrauded of ₹1.3 crore.

Case Title: Oma Kant Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi Through SHO

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

10. [Arvind Kejriwal] The Delhi High Court has granted time to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other accused in the Delhi excise policy case to file their responses to a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging their acquittal by a trial court. A bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on April 6 after noting that replies from the accused had not yet been filed. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, informed the court that copies of the petition had already been served on all the accused persons and that notices had also been duly delivered. Despite this, the court noted that no formal response had yet been filed by the accused. Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, told the court that a petition had been filed before the Supreme Court seeking that the case be listed before another bench. He indicated that the proceedings before the High Court should be considered in light of that request.  However, Mehta opposed the suggestion that the High Court proceedings should be delayed on that basis. He argued that the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court could not be treated as a ground for postponing the hearing in the High Court. Hariharan responded that he had no control over the functioning of the Supreme Court registry and could not determine when the matter would be listed there.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more