Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [September 8- 14, 2025]

1. [Aishwarya Rai's Personality Rights] In a major relief to Bollywood actor Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, the Delhi High Court has protected her personality and publicity rights, holding that unauthorized use of such rights violates the right to privacy and undermines the right to live with dignity. Justice Tejas Karia, granting an ex parte injunction, restrained individuals, websites, and online platforms from misusing her name, image, likeness, and persona. The Court stressed it “cannot turn a blind eye to unauthorized exploitation of one’s personality rights” and underlined the need to shield celebrities from commercial misuse of their identity. Rai had approached the Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of personality/publicity rights, passing off, and unfair competition. She highlighted rampant misuse of her identity across websites, merchandise platforms, AI-driven chatbots, and deepfake videos on YouTube. Finding a strong prima facie case and noting that the balance of convenience lay in her favour, the Court ruled in support of protecting her rights.

Case Title: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. AishwaryaWorld.com & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

2. [Abhishek Bachchan's Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan. Justice Tejas Karia, in a detailed 16-page order, restrained several defendants from misusing Bachchan’s voice, image, likeness and other attributes of his persona for any commercial or personal gain without his consent or authorization.The Court observed that the use of technology to depict the actor in misleading, derogatory or inappropriate settings intrudes upon his right to privacy, and that such misappropriation is aggravated by the ease of online dissemination.  The actor had told the court that his images had been used without consent and circulated across multiple platforms, including through the sale of merchandise and AI-generated videos on social media. Finding that Bachchan had established a prima facie case, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in his favour and that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.

Case Title: Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop and ors 

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

3. [High-Salary Wife Maintenance] The Delhi High Court has held that a highly qualified wife earning over Rs 1 lakh a month is still entitled to maintenance, underscoring that income alone cannot be a bar if it falls short of sustaining the standard of living enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Observing a stark financial disparity, with the husband earning nearly ten times more, the Court emphasized that the object of interim maintenance is to strike a fair balance and ensure parity in lifestyle, so the financially weaker spouse and child are not disadvantaged by the other’s economic superiority. The 14-page verdict came on an appeal against a Family Court order that had directed the husband to pay Rs 35,000 per month along with all school-related expenses for the child, but denied the wife any maintenance. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court, arguing that the Family Court erred in law. The husband, in turn, contended that Section 24 was not meant to create an “army of idle persons” or permit a spouse to live lavishly at another’s expense. Weighing the parties’ financial positions, social standing, lifestyle, liabilities, the needs of the child, and the rising cost of living, the Court enhanced the maintenance to a cumulative Rs 1.5 lakh per month for the wife and child together.

Case Title: X vs Y

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatngar

Click here to read more

4. [Karisma Kapoor’s Children: Estate Battle] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by Bollywood actor Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, seeking a share in the ₹30,000-crore estate of their father, late industrialist Sunjay Kapur. Justice Jyoti Singh directed Priya Kapur, Sunjay’s third wife, to disclose a complete list of movable and immovable assets known to her. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the plaintiffs, argued that Sunjay’s will was unregistered and had completely excluded his children. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, for Priya Kapur, admitted the will was not registered but said assets worth ₹1,900 crore had already been transmitted to the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, representing Sunjay’s mother Rani Kapur, strongly opposed the will, stating: “I am 80 years old, and I am being forced to litigate. I was excluded from there.” Filed through their mother and guardian, Karisma Kapoor, the children accused Priya Kapur of forging the will to seize control of the sprawling business empire. The death of business tycoon and Sona Comstar chairman Sunjay Kapur has triggered a spiralling inheritance battle over his estimated Rs 30,000 crore estate.

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

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

5. [LG Notification Compromises Right to Fair Trial] The Delhi High Court on September 10 observed that a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, allowing police officials to present evidence virtually from police stations, “prima facie compromised the concept of fair trial.” A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a plea filed by advocate Raj Gaurav, challenging the LG’s notification that designates all police stations in Delhi as venues for police personnel to depose before courts via video conferencing. The petition argues that the notification, read with Sections 265, 266, and 308 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, undermines the fairness of criminal trials by permitting examination and cross-examination of witnesses inside executive-controlled premises. The bench clarified that it did not dispute the LG’s power to notify venues but questioned the choice: “You have the authority to identify a designated place, no doubt about that. But why police stations?”At this stage, ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union, sought time to obtain instructions. The court adjourned the matter, tagging it with similar petitions, and listed it for hearing on December 10, 2025.

Case Title: Raj Gaurav v. Union of India & Ors 

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

Click here to read more

6. [GST Searches Need Lawyer Presence] The Delhi High Court has ruled that the GST Department cannot access an advocate’s computer without the lawyer’s presence and consent, warning that such action risks a serious breach of confidentiality and attorney–client privilege. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain stressed that searches of lawyers’ offices may only occur in exceptional circumstances and strictly in the advocate’s presence. “GST officials ought not to be permitted to open the CPU or computer of any advocate without his presence and consent, inasmuch as the same could lead to serious breach of confidentiality and attorney–client privilege,” the Court observed.The observations came while hearing a plea by Advocate Puneet Batra, who challenged a July 25, 2025 search by the Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Delhi East. He sought quashing of the operation, return of his seized CPU and documents, and exemption from further summons in connection with a client’s GST evasion case.

Case Title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors. Order 

Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain

Click here to read more

7. [POSH Report No Shield] The Delhi High Court has held that the POSH Act, 2013 does not entitle an accused to discharge in criminal proceedings under the IPC. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order dated August 28, 2025, dismissed a plea by Asif Hamid Khan, former Additional Resident Commissioner of J&K, who sought quashing of his trial on the strength of a favourable Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report and two police closure reports. The Court clarified that criminal and disciplinary proceedings operate in separate spheres, observing: “Exoneration in the departmental enquiry cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR. The standard of proof required is distinct and the Magistrate is not bound by a police closure report if prima facie material exists.”

Case Title: Asif Hamid Khan v State 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

8. [Delhi Lawyers' Strike] The Delhi Police on Monday has directed that all its officers and personnel must physically appear before trial courts in criminal cases for deposition and evidence. The circular, issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stated: "In partial modification of the earlier letter no.9860-72/CP Sectt/PHQ dated 04.09.2025, it is hereby directed that in all criminal trials, all police officers/personnel shall physically appear before the Hon’ble Courts for the purpose of deposition/evidence.” The direction marks a shift from the earlier practice, which allowed flexibility in the mode of appearance, and comes amid strong demands from the bar associations in the capital for ensuring physical presence of investigating officers and witnesses to maintain the integrity of trial proceedings. The Coordination Committee of All District Bar Associations of Delhi had recently reiterated its stand that virtual appearances by police personnel compromised the fairness of trial, stressing that only physical depositions could ensure proper cross-examination and transparency.

Circular by: Commissioner for Police Circular 

Click here to read more

9. [CLAT-PG Scores in NHAI Hiring] The Delhi High Court on September 8, 2025, heard a plea challenging the NHAI notification that made CLAT-PG scores mandatory for recruitment of legal officers. A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was informed by NHAI counsel that the authority would reconsider the decision and has extended the application deadline to September 25. The matter will be heard again on September 18. The petition, filed by Advocate Shannu Baghel, argues that CLAT-PG scores are meant for admission to master’s programs and have no rational nexus with recruitment as legal professionals.

Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Lalu Yadav’s Plea in Land-for-Jobs Case] The Delhi High Court on September 8, 2025, heard a plea by former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking quashing of the CBI FIR in the land-for-jobs case. Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard arguments from Kapil Sibal for Yadav, who contended that the CBI failed to obtain mandatory sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as Yadav was discharging official duties as Railway Minister. The CBI, represented by D.P. Singh, opposed the plea, alleging Yadav was stalling trial court proceedings. The hearing could not be concluded due to paucity of time and will continue.The case, also probed by the CBI and ED, involves allegations that railway jobs were exchanged for land parcels when Yadav was Railway Minister.

Case Title: Lalu Prasad Yadav vs CBI 

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

11. [ Rise in Student Suicides] The Delhi High Court has raised alarm over the disturbing rise in student suicides, stressing that urgent preventive measures are needed. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal, in a 30-page judgment authored by Justice Dayal, observed that at the very least, a “proper, functional and effective Anti-Ragging Helpline is an immediate necessity.” The Court warned: “This can brook no delay, lest we lose more young lives to this scourge.” The petitions were filed by the Aman Satya Kachroo Trust, founded by Prof. Rajendra Kachroo after the 2009 ragging-related death of his son, Aman. The Trust earlier managed the National Ragging Prevention Programme (NRPP) until 2022, when the UGC handed the contract to the Centre for Youth (C4Y). While the Court declined to interfere with the UGC’s contract decision, it said the broader issue of student suicides and mental health is already under consideration of the National Task Force constituted by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India. Disposing of the petitions, the Court underlined its “deep concern” with the rising number of student suicides and called for urgent systemic response.

 Case Title: Aman Satya Kachroo Trust v. University Grants Commission & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal

Click here to read more

12. [Delhi High Court Bomb Scare] Proceedings at the Delhi High Court came to an abrupt halt on Friday after the Registrar General received a bomb threat email at 10:41 AM. The email, sent to Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj, invoked links with Pakistan’s ISI, threatened political figures, and warned that a judge’s chamber would be detonated after Friday prayers. It carried specific references to political heirs, acid attacks, and claims of “assets” planted in the police since 2017. Following receipt of the threat, judges rose from their courts, courtrooms were vacated, and all matters were adjourned. A bomb disposal squad was deployed and security across the High Court complex was stepped up. However, after security clearance, the High Court resumed proceedings later in the day. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police has launched an investigation into the authenticity of the threat email.

Source: Delhi Police

Click here to read more

13. [DHCBA on Punjab Floods] Amid the recent floods in Punjab and other parts of the country, the Executive Committee of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has expressed deep concern over the large-scale devastation. In a notice issued on Monday, the Committee said it was anguished at the “unprecedented destruction caused by the floods, resulting in extensive loss of life and property.”Punjab is witnessing one of the worst floods in decades, triggered by swelling rivers including the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi. The crisis has been worsened by extreme monsoon rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, coupled with excess water releases from Pong and Bhakra dams, leading to severe downstream flooding. Calling on its members to support relief work, the DHCBA urged the Bar community to contribute generously to aid the affected families.

Notice: Delhi High Court Bar Association

Dated: September 8, 2025

Click here to read more

14. [Abhijit Iyer-Mitra vs Newslaundry] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the recent tweets by Abhijit Iyer-Mitra were not defamatory, while hearing a fresh petition filed by Newslaundry Managing Editor Manisha Pande and other women journalists seeking their takedown. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed: “Let the matter be pending, in order to see how Mitra behaves. If there is any repeated recurrence on his part, we will consider. Today, we are not passing any order.” In its order, the court deferred the hearing, noting that Defendant No. 1 had already complied with directions to remove earlier impermissible tweets, and his reply clarified that the present post had no connection with those. The court added: “That tweet cannot be said to be defamatory. The earlier tweet was completely impermissible in law, and he had agreed to take it down. Now this small line, ‘basti’, he says, you should not be like this.” Appearing for the journalists, Advocate Bani Dixit argued that the tweet in question was clearly defamatory, but the court emphasized the need for balancing free expression and reputational concerns.

Case Title: Manisha Pande v Abhijit Iyer Mitra 

Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

15. [M.F. Husain’s Paintings] The Delhi High Court declined to order a police probe into allegations that two paintings by late artist M.F. Husain, alleged to hurt religious sentiments, were exhibited at the Delhi Art Gallery. Justice Amit Mahajan, while hearing the plea, remarked: “Where is a probe required in this?” noting that all relevant material was already before the court to decide whether sentiments had indeed been offended. The petition challenged an earlier Delhi court judgment had ruled no further probe was required in the matter. On January 20 this year, a Delhi court directed the seizure of M.F. Husain’s paintings depicting Hindu deities, which were on display at the Delhi Art Gallery. The artworks portrayed Lord Hanuman and Lord Ganesha holding nude female figures. Subsequently, in August, a Delhi Sessions Court refused to direct police investigation into a complaint against the Delhi Art Gallery for displaying two paintings by late artist MF Husain, alleged to have hurt Hindu sentiments.

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more

16. [Masoom Kaatil Ban] While denying certification to the Hindi film Masoom Kaatil, the Delhi High Court held that certification cannot be granted to a film that ridicules religions, incites hatred, or threatens social harmony in a diverse, secular society. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was dealing with an appeal filed by filmmaker Shyam Bharteey, challenging the refusal of certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for public exhibition of his film Masoom Kaatil. Upholding the ban, Justice Arora observed that in the film the protagonists take the law into their own hands without consequence. “If a film makes it seem that taking the law into your own hands is something to be admired and celebrated, it can damage people’s trust in the legal system and suggest that using violence instead of following the law is acceptable,” the Court noted.The Court held that Masoom Kaatil was fundamentally incompatible with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the 1991 Guidelines, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Shyam Bharteey v. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Officer Delhi & Anr

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

17. [ Judicial Member Not Mandatory in NCDRC] The Delhi High Court has recently held that the law does not require a two-member bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to necessarily include a judicial member. Justice Manoj Jain, in a detailed 17-page judgment, observed that under Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, no act or proceeding of the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission can be held invalid merely because of a vacancy or a defect in the constitution of its bench. He underscored that even if there were such a defect, which is not the case here, it would not render the orders of the NCDRC unenforceable.Court made these observations while dealing with a plea filed by Navin M. Raheja and another petitioner challenging two orders of the NCDRC. The petitioners argued that the NCDRC bench which decided the case was invalid because it comprised only technical members and no judicial member.

Case Title: Navin M. Raheja & Anr. v. Dinesh Goyal & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

18. [ SFIO Probe Quashed] The Delhi High Court has set aside the Ministry of Corporate Affairs order dated 05.09.2024 directing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate Moser Baer India Ltd. (MBIL) and its subsidiaries, holding that the direction suffered from incurable legal lacunae. Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing the petition filed by Nita Puri, held that the exercise of power under Section 212(1)(c) in a casual or perfunctory manner “seriously undermines the statutory provision itself and the safeguards implicit thereunder.” The Court criticised the use of boilerplate language and extrapolations from third-party documents without due consideration of relevant circumstances, calling it a disregard for procedural propriety. The Court further emphasised that an order under Section 212(1)(c) is not a routine administrative measure but “an extremely serious statutory action having grave consequences”, and must therefore be based on demonstrable reasons and circumstances warranting such investigation. Finding that the government’s order was issued “in a rather casual manner, unmindful of the statutory pre-requisites,” the Court quashed it along with all consequential proceedings.

Case Title: Nita Puri v. Union of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta 

Click here to read more

19. [Wow Momos vs Wow Burger] The Delhi High Court has recently refused to grant an interim injunction to the plaintiff, Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based quick service restaurant chain, in its trademark infringement suit against the defendant, Wow Burger, a Hong Kong-based food brand. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who underlined that the plaintiff was attempting to monopolise the use of the dictionary word “WOW,” which the Court held cannot be allowed, given the common and laudatory nature of the word. Citing Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court underlined that words which simply convey praise or describe the quality or characteristics of goods or services are not entitled to protection as trademarks. “Placing reliance on the settled law and the common meaning of the word ‘WOW’, it is concluded that ‘WOW’ is a laudatory exclamation in the food/hospitality business, universally used to convey delight over ‘quality’ of the food,” the Court said, adding that the plaintiff cannot convert that everyday exclamation into its private preserve/property.

Case Title: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

20. [HC Denies Terrorist’s Release Plea] The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea for the premature release of Nasir Mohd. Sodozey alias Aftaab Ahmed, who is serving a life sentence for his role in the 1994 abduction of four foreign nationals carried out under the banner of the banned terrorist group Harkat-ul-Ansar. The kidnappings were aimed at compelling the Government of India to release jailed militants. In a detailed 11-page judgment, Justice Sanjeev Narula upheld the Sentence Review Board’s (SRB) order of June 30, 2023, which had rejected Sodozey’s request for early release. The Court ruled that the gravity of the offence and national security concerns outweigh reform claims. The judge observed that the convict’s conduct was “not merely an ordinary crime but an attack upon the very fabric of civil order, striking at the rule of law and the security of the State. The broader objective, employing fear and intimidation to secure political ends, marks this case apart from conventional offences, placing it in a category of exceptional gravity.”

Case Title: Nasir Mohd. Sodozey alias Aftaab Ahmed vs State of NCT of Delhi 

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Click here to read more