Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [September 15-21, 2025]

1. [Noida Dowry Murder] A Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Noida on September 11, rejected the bail pleas of Nikki Bhati’s husband Vipin Bhati, his brother Rohit, and parents Daya and Satveer, who were arrested following allegations of dowry harassment and murder. Nikki, 28, died of severe burn injuries on August 21 after being allegedly set on fire at her marital home in Kasna. She succumbed to her injuries while being shifted to Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital the same day. The bail applications, filed by Advocate Amit Bhati Bodaki, claimed Nikki’s death resulted from a cylinder blast, submitting CCTV footage purportedly showing Vipin outside the house at the time of the incident. However, Advocate Udham Singh, appearing for the complainant countered, stating police had found no evidence of a cylinder blast, and accused the defence of attempting to mislead the court. Chief Judicial Magistrate RK Sagar, while rejecting the bail pleas, noted the seriousness of the allegations and observed, “The allegation against the accused is of murdering the sister of the plaintiff by pouring inflammable substance on her along with the co-accused. The case is session triable, non-bailable, and of serious nature. There are no sufficient grounds for bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the bail application is rejected.”

Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate RK Sagar

Click here to read more 

2. [Tahawwur Rana] A Delhi Court has sought an explanation from Tihar Jail authorities for not allowing 26/11 Mumbai terror mastermind Tahawwur Rana to communicate with his family over the phone for the purpose of engaging a private lawyer, despite a previous court order permitting the same. The matter is listed for further hearing on September 19 before Special Judge (NIA) Chanderjit Singh of the Patiala House Court. Rana, who appeared via video conferencing, informed the Court through his legal-aid counsel, Advocate Piyush Sachdeva, that he has not been able to speak to his brother in Canada using the jail’s phone facility, which was authorized for a limited purpose by the court. In an order dated August 7, the Court had allowed Rana to talk to family members, including his brother, thrice for 10 minutes each within four weeks, strictly for engaging a private counsel. Rana is currently represented by a legal-aid counsel provided to him.

Case Title: NIA v. David Coleman Headley 

Bench: Special Judge Chander Jit Singh

Click here to read more 

3. [BMW Car Crash] Gaganpreet Kaur, accused of driving her BMW over a couple in Delhi two days back, was remanded to judicial custody on Monday. The 38-year-old woman rammed here BMW into a motorcycle near Dhaula Kuan in Delhi. As a result, the person driving the two-wheeler, a Finance Ministry official, Navjot Singh, was declared dead while his wife, Sandeep Kaur has sustained multiple fractures and head injuries. Singh and his wife were returning home from Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. Allegedly, after the crash, the woman driver and her husband, who was also in the car, transported the injured couple not to the nearest facility but to Nuelife Hospital in GTB Nagar, about 17 km away. On Wednesday extended till September 27 the judicial custody of Gaganpreet Kaur, the woman accused of driving the BMW that fatally hit Deputy Secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs, Navjot Singh, near Dhaula Kuan. Singh’s wife sustained serious injuries in the collision. Kaur was initially remanded, two days Judicial Custody by the Court.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg

Click here and here to read more

4. [Delhi BMW Car Accident; Gaganpreet Kaur's Bail Plea] In the Dhaula Kuan BMW accident case, sharp arguments unfolded before a Delhi Court as the defence claimed accused Gaganpreet Kaur acted swiftly to rush victim Navjot Singh to a hospital, while the complainant alleged she deliberately delayed treatment by avoiding the nearest facility, leading to his death. The Court adjourned the hearing on the bail application filed by Gaganpreet Kaur to September 20 after extensive submissions by the defence, complainant, and the Investigating Officer (IO). Senior Advocates Ramesh Gupta and Vikas Pahwa appeared for Kaur. Arguing for bail, before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg of Patiala House Court, Gupta submitted that Kaur had no intention to cause harm and, in fact, had acted promptly to help the victim, Navjot Singh, a senior official in the Department of Economic Affairs. According to Gupta, Kaur stopped a van at the accident site to assist Singh, used a taxi driver’s phone to call her father-in-law after forgetting her own inside the car, and rushed Singh to a hospital within 21 minutes despite being injured herself. She left her injured husband and children at the spot. Her purpose was clear, to get medical treatment for the deceased and herself as quickly as possible. Everyone in such a situation tries to save life; what else could have been her intention?” Gupta argued. He added that the allegation Singh should have been taken to Safdarjung Hospital, just ten minutes away, could not be determinative. “Even the Supreme Court has held that a fair investigation is the heart of our judicial system. The police must collect real evidence,” he said, stressing the incident was “unfortunate” but not criminally motivated.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg

Click here to read more 

5. [Adani Defamation Case; Paranjoy Guha Thakurta] A Delhi Court has reserved its order on the plea filed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging a civil court’s injunction that barred him from publishing articles about the Adani Group and its companies. The matter was heard by District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of Rohini Courts, where the court also noted that another appeal by co-defendant journalists had been filed but not yet listed. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appeared for Guha, while Senior Advocates Anurag Ahluwalia, Jagdeep Sharma and Vijay Aggarwal represented Adani Enterprises. Pais attacked the impugned order as “overbroad and unreasoned,” stressing that it not only prohibited publication against Adani Enterprises but also extended to group companies not even party to the suit. He argued that the order effectively allows Adani to act as “judge in its own case,” since it leaves the determination of what is defamatory to the plaintiff. “The injunction order doesn’t specify which words or passages are defamatory. It simply records submissions of the plaintiff as if they were findings. Articles from 2017 and even one-year-old reports have been clubbed together, and intermediaries have been directed to remove any content that the plaintiff claims is defamatory,” Pais told the court. He submitted that the civil court judge failed to apply the test for defamation and that an injunction cannot be granted without reasoned findings.

Case Title: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta v. Adani Enterprises Ltd.

Bench: District Judge Sunil Chaudhary

Click here and here to read more 

6. [Appeal by Journalists in Adani Defamation Case] A Delhi Court has set aside a trial court’s order that had restrained journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi from publishing allegedly defamatory stories against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of Rohini Court, hearing the appeal filed by the four journalists, held that the earlier order of the Senior Civil Judge (SCJ) was unsustainable as it was passed without giving the defendants an opportunity to be heard. Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi appeared for the journalists. The Court noted that while Adani Enterprises had objected to several articles and posts spanning 2024–2025, the trial court restrained the journalists without considering their defence. “The SCJ ought to have made an opinion of the content. The defendants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. That not having been done, the order is not sustainable,” Judge Aggarwal observed. The Court also highlighted the impact of the earlier order, noting that it effectively allowed the plaintiff to approach intermediaries for removal of material it considered defamatory. “An incorrect determination by intermediaries would bring those who have not complied with it in the teeth of contempt,” the judge remarked. Accordingly, the order was set aside but limited in effect to the appellants before the court. The trial court has been directed to decide the interim relief application afresh, after giving both sides a proper hearing, by October 15, 2025.

Bench: District Judge Ashish Aggarwal

Click here to read more 

7. [2020 Delhi Riots] A Delhi court has convicted six men for rioting, vandalism, arson and house trespass during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that they were part of an unlawful assembly that set ablaze articles in a shop in Khajuri Khas. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Praveen Singh of Karkardooma Courts found Hariom Gupta, Basant Kumar Mishra, Gorakh Nath, Rohit Gautam, Kapil Pandey and Bheem Sain guilty of multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 435 (mischief by fire), 436 (mischief by fire to destroy house), and 450 (house trespass). The case stemmed from FIR No. 247/2020 registered at Khajuri Khas police station on the basis of a complaint filed by Mohd. Wakeel, who alleged that rioters had set fire to his shop, destroying all articles inside. Wakeel claimed losses of around Rs. 1.5 lakh due to the violence. After examining the evidence and testimonies, the court concluded that the six accused had acted together as part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing riot and arson. “The proven act of the unlawful assembly of which they were a part was that the mob of rioters acted in unison, vandalized and burnt articles of Wakeel’s shop, with the common object to commit riot, arson and mischief,” ASJ Singh observed in the judgment.

Case Title: State v. Hariom Gupta & Ors.

Bench: ASJ Parveen Singh

Click here to read more 

8. [Karan Johar Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has recently passed an ex parte interim order protecting the personality rights of filmmaker and producer Karan Johar. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that several infringing websites and platforms had unauthorisedly exploited and misappropriated Johar’s voice, name, and image for commercial gain, amounting to a violation of his personality rights. The Court held that such conduct was liable to be injuncted and emphasised that if relief was not granted, it would cause irreparable harm to Johar’s reputation. “In view of the above, the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that if an injunction is not granted in favour of the Plaintiff, irreparable loss and harm would be caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation,” the Court said. Accordingly, the Court restrained multiple defendants, including leading tech platforms, e-commerce sites, and content-sharing portals, from the unauthorised use of Johar’s name, image, voice, and likeness.