Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [May 18-May 24, 2026]

1. [Swaraj Singh Yadav] A Delhi court has directed immediate protective measures for victims and prosecution witnesses in a money laundering case against accused Swaraj Singh Yadav, after multiple homebuyers alleged that they were being threatened and pressured to withdraw complaints and stop cooperating with the investigation. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shefali Barnala Tandon passed the order on May 18 while hearing the regular bail plea in a case being probed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). What triggered the Court's intervention? The Court stepped in after victims and witnesses informed it that they were facing intimidation both inside and outside the courtroom, including attempts to record them while they were present for the bail hearing. According to submissions placed before the Court, an unidentified individual was allegedly found recording videos of victims waiting outside the courtroom. When confronted, the person allegedly identified himself as “Manoj” and said he was acting on instructions from the accused’s counsel to record those opposing bail. The court directed that the photograph taken by victims be placed on record and ordered preservation of CCTV footage.

Click here to read more

2. [Amicus; Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura] The Delhi High Court has appointed Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in a contempt petition arising from alleged contemptuous social media posts and related electronic material against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The case stems from a judgment dated 14 May 2026 passed by a Single Judge in CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 titled Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kuldeep Singh and Ors., where reliance was placed on social media posts and other electronic and publication records. In the order, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja directed the Registry to preserve copies of the material relied upon in the earlier judgment and place them before the Court in the present proceedings to ensure proper consideration of the record. The Court had also issued notice to the alleged contemnors, including political leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Devesh Vishwakarma and Saurabh Bhardwaj, making the notice returnable on 4 August 2026.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Arvind Kejriwal and Ors.

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

3. [Abhijit Iyer Mitra] A Delhi court has refused to urgently take up a plea filed by Manisha Pande seeking registration of an FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra over alleged abusive and sexually coloured remarks directed at her and other women employees of Newslaundry on social media. The matter was mentioned before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshotam Pathak after the Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a sessions court order that had stayed a magistrate’s earlier direction to register an FIR against Mitra. Justice Girish Kathpalia remanded the matter back to the sessions court for fresh consideration. Also Read - Twisha Sharma Death Case: MP High Court Issues Notice On Pleas Challenging Anticipatory Bail Granted To Giribala Singh During the hearing today, counsel appearing for Pande informed the court that an FIR had already been registered under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman. “This matter was heard by my Lords, notice was issued and stay was also given,” the counsel submitted while mentioning the case. The court, however, questioned the purpose of the mentioning. “So, you’re mentioning for what?” the judge asked.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purushottam Pathak

Click here to read more

4. [Copyright infringement case] A Delhi commercial court has permanently restrained a UK-based YouTube operator and Google entities from infringing the copyrighted content of popular YouTuber Karl Rock, while also awarding him Rs. 5 lakh in damages and Rs. 2 lakh towards litigation costs. District Judge Vinod Yadav of Rohini Court passed the judgment on May 13, 2026, in a summary suit filed by Karl Edward Rice, who runs the widely followed YouTube channel “Karl Rock.” The suit was filed against UK-based content creator Adam El-Megrisi, operator of the YouTube channel “VidBrew,” along with Google LLC, its India liaison office, and other unidentified defendants. The dispute centered around allegations that El-Megrisi systematically copied portions of Karl Rock’s original travel and investigative videos and reposted them as YouTube Shorts without permission. According to the plaintiff, the clips were reproduced almost identically, without any transformation, commentary, criticism, parody, or fair use protection. The court noted that Karl Rock had produced detailed frame-by-frame comparisons demonstrating direct copying of footage and audio from his videos. The allegedly infringing Shorts had collectively garnered more than 26 lakh views.

Case Title: Karl Edward Rice Also Known as Karl Rock v. Mr.Adam El-Megrisi Also Known As VidBrew & Ors.

Bench: District Judge Vinod Yadav

Click here to read more

5. [Umar Khalid] A Delhi court has rejected activist Umar Khalid’s plea seeking 15 days’ interim bail to attend the Chehlum ceremony of his late uncle and to care for his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery next month. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma court passed the order. Khalid had moved the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appearing for Khalid, Advocate Sahil Ghai told the court that Khalid’s uncle, Khursheed Ahmad Khan, passed away on April 10, 2026, and the 40th day ritual, or Chehlum, is scheduled to be held in Delhi on May 24. The defence also informed the court that Khalid’s mother has been unwell for a long time and was recently examined at Alshifa Multispeciality Hospital, where doctors advised her to undergo lump excision surgery on June 2. Khalid argued that he was the eldest and only son in the family and needed to take care of his mother before and after the surgery. The plea stated that although he has five sisters, four of them are married and live away from the family home. It was also submitted that his 71-year-old father is not in a position to look after his wife during the medical procedure.

Case Title: State v. Tahir Hussain

Bench: ASJ Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more

6. [Social Media campaign against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma] The Delhi High Court has tagged a fresh criminal contempt petition against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Saurabh Bhardwaj with the contempt proceedings already pending against them over alleged social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that it had already taken cognizance of the allegations, issued notices to the concerned parties, and appointed an amicus curiae in the matter. The Court said there was no need to multiply contempt proceedings by entertaining parallel petitions on the same issue. "we are of the opinion that instead of multiplying the number of matters against the respondents, this contempt case be also taken up along with contempt case instituted earlier." the Bench observed. The petition had sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Bhardwaj, AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, alleging that they were part of a coordinated social media campaign aimed at scandalising the Court and lowering the authority of Justice Sharma.

Case Title: Ashok Chaitanya v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja

Click here, here and here to read more

7. [Timely refund of court fee] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Government to formulate a policy or guidelines within four months to ensure expeditious refund of court fees once disputes between litigants are settled. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the absence of a codified mechanism was causing unnecessary hardship and delays for litigants seeking refund of court fees under Sections 16 and 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Court observed, “Once the lawsuit brought to the court is settled between the parties, there is no reason why such a litigant should face difficulties and a long time for the return of the court fee.” The Bench further stated that a structured and codified mechanism would significantly ease the process for litigants seeking refund of court fees after settlement of disputes. The Court directed the Delhi Government to frame the policy in consultation with the High Court within the stipulated period of four months. The directions were passed while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Deepak Singh Thakur along with another litigant.

Case Title: Deepak Singh Thakur & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

8. [Vested Right] The Delhi High Court has held that compassionate appointment is neither a vested nor hereditary right and cannot be permitted to function as an alternate mode of public employment after a deceased employee’s family has survived for several years without immediate financial destitution. Justice Shail Jain, while allowing a writ petition filed by BSES Yamuna Power Limited, set-aside an Industrial Tribunal award that had directed the company to consider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment. “While this Court is not unmindful of the hardship faced by the Respondent and his family consequent upon the demise of the employee, considerations of sympathy cannot override the constitutional mandate governing public employment or the express stipulations contained in the applicable Scheme. Compassionate appointment is not intended to operate as a source of financial advancement or long-term economic rehabilitation for the family of a deceased employee. Its object is strictly confined to providing immediate succour to a family suddenly rendered vulnerable by the untimely demise of its breadwinner, and it cannot be permitted to assume the character of an alternate mode of public employment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned Award suffers from patent illegality, non-application of mind, and findings directly contrary to the material available on record”, the court observed.

Case: M/s BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar

Bench: Justice Shail Jain

Click here to read more

9. [Taanashahi Remark] The Delhi High Court has imposed a sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each in two connected criminal contempt cases against Youtuber and Advocate Gulshan Pahuja, after finding him guilty of scandalising the Court and lowering its authority. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja delivered the order while dealing with submissions made by the contemnor on sentencing, including a plea seeking recall of the Court’s earlier judgment dated 21.04.2026, which had already held him guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court had earlier issued notice under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, granting him an opportunity to address arguments on the quantum of punishment. The contemnor argued that the earlier judgment suffered from procedural irregularities, including alleged denial of full hearing, non-summoning of trial court records, and failure to examine judicial officers mentioned in his social media posts. He also contended that the Court had not properly considered documents filed along with his reply and that the conviction was contrary to principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Articles 14, 20(3) and 21.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv and Ors. Deepak Advocate and Anr.

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

10. [Excise Policy Case] The Delhi High Court has took up the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other accused in the alleged liquor policy scam case, with Justice Manoj Jain presiding over the matter after its reassignment from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The case was transferred following the initiation of contempt proceedings by Justice Sharma against certain parties in the same matter. Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that all respondents had been duly served and that the matter had already seen appearances and arguments at earlier stages. He maintained that the discharge order “cannot stand scrutiny of law” and urged for expedited hearing, terming the case one involving serious allegations and a “scam in the capital of this nation.” Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate. The Court noted that there was no representation for Respondents 8, 18 and 19 despite repeated listings. Mehta also highlighted that multiple opportunities had already been granted for filing replies but compliance remained incomplete. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Vijay Nair, argued that pending maintainability applications should be heard first and separately. He also contended that the revision petitioners were private counsel rather than public prosecutors, and therefore sought independent consideration of his applications.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more