Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [November 17-23, 2025]

1. [120 Bahadur] The Delhi High Court has allowed the theatrical release of the Farhan Akhtar-starrer 120 Bahadur on 21 November, while disposing of a petition challenging the CFC certification granted to the film on the ground that it presents a “distorted view of history.” The film, slated for release on 21 November 2025, is based on the valour of Major Shaitan Singh Bhati, who was posthumously awarded the Param Vir Chakra for his leadership in the Battle of Rezang La, fought on 18 November 1962 during the Sino-Indian War. A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain recorded the petitioners’ submission that all 120 soldiers who fought in the battle have been credited in the film. The Court also noted that it would be too late to alter the film’s title, release date, or make substantial changes at the last moment, and observed that the producers have included the names of the soldiers at the end of the movie as a special tribute.

Case Title: Sanyukt Ahir Regiment Morcha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

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

Click here to read more

2. [Raj Shamani; Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has said it would pass an order on a plea filed by podcaster and entrepreneur Raj Shamani seeking protection of his personality rights. Shamani approached the Court seeking safeguards for the unauthorised use of his name, image, voice and likeness. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the matter and passed an injunction restraining several platforms, including. Meta Platforms, Google, X Corp, Telegram and YouTube. The Court also issued summons to these platforms. Appearing for Shamani, Senior Advocate Diya Kapur argued that AI-generated deepfakes and fake endorsements featuring Shamani were being circulated online. It was further submitted that unauthorised chatbots were impersonating him. Referring to his podcast Figuring Out with Raj Shamani, Kapur added that certain YouTube channels were misusing clips, logos and branding elements to mislead audiences. She also raised concerns about hashtags and memes being exploited to increase visibility and create confusion. However, the Court made it clear that it was not, at this stage, issuing any injunction against parody or satirical videos. Justice Arora observed that several of the impugned videos “ex facie identify themselves as parody,” and held that clubbing such material with allegations of unauthorised exploitation of personality and publicity rights would “embarrass the trial,” as the nature of the claims and the corresponding defences available to the parties were fundamentally distinct.

Case Title: RaJ Shamani and Ors v Ashok Kumar

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

3. [Anjana Om Kashyap] The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of senior journalist and Aaj Tak Managing Editor (Special Projects) Anjana Om Kashyap, restraining a YouTube channel that was impersonating her through deepfake technology. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order while dealing with a suit filed by T.V. Today Network Ltd. and Kashyap alleging misuse of her personality rights, deepfake videos, and unauthorised use of her photographs. The Court noted that an unknown individual operating the YouTube channel “@AnajanaomKashya” had been using fabricated news clips, altered videos, and images in a manner that deliberately misrepresented them as content created or endorsed by Kashyap. The Court had earlier granted an ad-interim injunction on June 20, 2025 and directed Google LLC to take down the channel and disclose the basic subscriber information of the uploader. In its final order, the High Court emphasised the grave risk of misinformation posed by such impersonation, especially when it involves a well-known journalist.

Case Title: TV Today Network Limited & Anr. v. Google LLC & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

4. [Red Fort Blast] The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea by Red Fort blast co-accused Jasir Bilal Wani, who had approached the court seeking permission to consult his lawyer at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) headquarters. While hearing the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma questioned the maintainability of the plea, noting that Wani had not produced any order from the trial court showing that his request for a lawyer’s meeting had been refused. The judge emphasised that no special treatment could be extended to the accused and that judicial procedures must be adhered to.Wani’s counsel said that the trial court had turned down the request orally, prompting the court’s remark. Wani was taken into custody by the NIA on November 17 for his role as an “active co-conspirator” of suicide bomber Umar Un Nabi in the November 10 Red Fort car explosion that killed 15 people. The following day, a trial court placed him in NIA custody for 10 days.

Case Title: Jasir Bilal Wani @Danish vs National Investigation Agency

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

5. [Christian Michel James] The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to hear a petition filed by Christian Michel, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, in which he sought a declaration that a provision of the India–UAE extradition treaty is unlawful. Michel had challenged Article 17 of the 1999 extradition treaty between India and the UAE. The provision permits India to prosecute an extradited person not only for the offences for which extradition was granted, but also for other “connected” offences arising from the same set of facts. Michel contended that this clause was illegal. The Court, however, refused to entertain his plea. While doing so, a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain questioned the very maintainability of the petition. The judges asked Michel’s counsel to demonstrate the cause of action and observed that an international treaty cannot be struck down merely because a petitioner seeks such a declaration.The Bench also noted that Michel had not sought any consequential relief that would logically follow from a declaration striking down Article 17. Since the petition lacked a proper legal foundation and was inadequately framed, the Court asked the petitioner to file a more appropriate pleading. Following this, Advocate Aljo K Joseph, appearing for Michel, withdrew the petition.

Case Title: Christian Michel James vs Union of India

Bench: Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

6. [Cash for Query Row] The Delhi High Court on Friday, November 21, 2025, reserved its verdict on Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s petition challenging the Lokpal’s decision granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the cash for query case. A Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved judgment after hearing submissions from Moitra’s counsel as well as Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appearing for the CBI. In July, the CBI submitted its report after the Lokpal directed it to investigate allegations made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey against Moitra, who was then the Lok Sabha member from Krishnanagar. Dubey had accused Moitra of asking questions in Parliament to target the Adani Group at the behest of businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for gifts, a controversy widely referred to as the cash for query row.

Case Title: Mahua Moitra vs Lokpal of India

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to read more

7. [Sunjay Kapur Inheritance Case] The minor son of Priya Kapur, widow of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, on Friday opposed in the Delhi High Court a plea by actor Karisma Kapoor’s children challenging the authenticity of their father’s alleged will, arguing that the challenge was built on “speculation and guesswork.” The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Priya Kapur’s minor son Azarias, before a bench presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh. Sibal argued that there was complete silence from the plaintiffs after the July 30 meeting, with neither Karisma Kapoor’s daughter Samaira nor her minor son raising any request for a copy of the will. It was only on August 22, he argued, that the first communication was sent to the executor seeking a copy of the document. A day earlier, Priya Kapur told the High Court that it was a healthy tradition for a husband to bequeath all his assets to his wife, disputing the contention of Karisma Kapoor’s children that their father’s alleged will had surfaced in suspicious circumstances.

Case Title: Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

8. [PIL on RTE Exclusions for Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the Right to Education Act 2009, stating that these provisions deprive Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas and educational institutions imparting religious instruction of educational excellence by keeping them outside the ambit of the Act. Filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, the plea seeks a declaration that Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act are arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A and the Preamble and therefore should be declared void and inoperative. The plea states, “But rather than implementing a common compulsory education system for all children in spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A, 38, 39, 46 and Preamble; Centre inserted S. 1(4) and i(5) to deprive educational excellence to Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas & educational institutions imparting religious instruction. Thus, S.1(4) and 1(5) not only offend Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A but also contrary to Articles 38, 39, 46 & Preamble of the Constitution.”

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India & others

Hearing: Expected