Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [October 27- November 1, 2025]

1. [Singer Kumar Sanu’s Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief protecting the personality rights of playback singer Kumar Sanu, restraining the unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, and voice, including through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technological tools. The Bench, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the singer’s personality traits and attributes form protectable elements of his persona. “Therefore, prima facie the Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including Plaintiff’s name Kumar Sanu, voice, image, photograph or likeness and other attributes are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The Plaintiff is entitled to protect itself against morphed and distorted content which is demeaning,” the Court said.

The Court noted that Kumar Sanu had established a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, observing that the balance of convenience lay in his favour and that denying protection would cause irreparable loss and harm to his reputation. The Court was dealing with a suit alleging that several online platforms and individuals had been using the singer’s name, likeness, and voice through morphing, superimposing, and AI-generated content to promote merchandise and social media pages for commercial gain.

Case Title: Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee vs Jammable Limited & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

2.  [No Alimony for Financially Self-Sufficient Spouse] The Delhi High Court has held that a financially self-sufficient and independent spouse is not entitled to alimony, observing that maintenance under matrimonial law is meant to prevent destitution, not serve as a tool for enrichment or parity between equals. In a detailed 37-page judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that “the provision under Section 25 is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses, ensuring that a party lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage.” However, it emphasised that “the grant of such relief is not automatic; it is contingent upon proof of genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.” Court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, a Group ‘A’ officer of the Indian Railway Traffic Service, challenging a Family Court order dissolving her marriage with her advocate husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and refused to grant alimony. It said the lower court had correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the law, concluding that “a spouse who is financially independent cannot claim alimony merely as a matter of right.”

Case Title: X vs Y

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to read more

3. [Sadhguru’s Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has recently directed Google LLC to deploy technological tools to prevent the circulation of misleading or unauthorised content that infringes upon the personality rights of spiritual leader and founder of Isha Foundation, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while hearing a plea filed by Sadhguru, asked Google to use technology to identify and remove identical or similar infringing content so that the plaintiffs are not repeatedly compelled to approach the Court for the takedown of such material.

“Having hearing the learned counsels for the plaintiff and Defendant No. 45, the parties are directed to have a mutual meeting, where the Plaintiff can specifically identify the contents, which falls within the exception of the policy of Google Ads itself and thereafter, Defendant No. 45 must make an endeavor to ensure that the identical or similar content is removed through its technology so as to obviate the Plaintiff’s onus of looking out for such URLs and further to obviate the necessity of the Plaintiff making an endeavor to identify such misleading representation and approaching Defendant No. 45 for take down” the Court said.

The Court directed both sides to hold a mutual meeting to identify the offending links and instructed Google to ensure that “identical or similar content is removed through its technology” to prevent recurrence. The judge clarified that if Google faced any “technological limitations or reservations,” it could file an affidavit explaining its position.

Case Title: Sadhguru Jagadish & anr versus Ignor Isakov & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more 

4. [Wow Momo Against Wow Burger] The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., the Kolkata-based quick service restaurant chain, in its trademark infringement suit against Wow Burger, a Hong Kong-based food brand. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the order while allowing the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods, challenging a single judge’s decision that had dismissed its plea. The appellant had alleged that the use of the marks “WOW BURGER” and related branding by the respondents infringed its registered trademarks “WOW MOMO” and other “WOW”-formative marks.

Overturning the single-judge’s order, the Bench observed that an average consumer familiar with the Wow Momo brand was likely to assume an association with Wow Burger. “Applying these principles, there can, to our mind, be no manner of doubt that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who is aware of, or has seen, the appellant’s mark WOW MOMO would, when he later comes across the respondent’s mark WOW BURGER, be, at the very least, inclined to presume the existence of an association between the two marks. This appears to us to be so obvious that it does not call for any explanation,” the Court said.

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

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

5.  [Mere Alleging ‘Physical Relations’ Not Sufficient To Establish Rape] Holding that the mere use of the term “physical relations” without any supporting evidence cannot sustain a conviction for rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to ten years in jail under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while allowing the man’s appeal against his conviction and sentence in a case registered at Alipur police station. “Whether use of the expression ‘physical relations’ would automatically mean rape or penetrative sexual assault, or whether there has to be some further description or other evidence to establish the connection between the term ‘physical relations’ and the offence?” the Court remarked.

In the peculiar facts of the case, the judge said that the “use of the term ‘physical relations’, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.” Finding that the conviction was “unsustainable,” the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the accused. “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside,” the order read.

Case Title: Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Click here to read more

6. [Hrithik Roshan’s Personality Rights] Granting relief to Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan, the Delhi High Court has protected his personality rights and directed the removal of content that infringes upon them, including the unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and voice. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Roshan’s personality traits are protectable elements of his identity, entitling him to safeguard them from misuse, impersonation, or distortion, whether through artificial intelligence or otherwise, when such use is demeaning or lowers his reputation and goodwill.

“Therefore, prima facie the Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including Plaintiff’s name Hrithik Roshan, voice, image, photograph, or likeness and other attributes are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The Plaintiff is also entitled to protect itself against impersonation, false, obscene, morphed and distorted content created with the use of AI or otherwise, which is demeaning and lowers his reputation and goodwill,” the Court said. Holding that the actor had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the Court said the balance of convenience also lay in Roshan’s favor. It observed that denial of interim protection would cause irreparable loss and harm to his reputation. In his suit, Roshan joined multiple causes of action arising from unauthorised commercial use of his personality rights by third parties, including the sale of merchandise, circulation of disparaging and obscene memes, impersonation, and misuse of his name, face, or voice through AI, morphing, superimposition, and creation of GIFs.

Case Title: Hrithik Roshan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more 

7. [Friendship No License to Rape] The Delhi High Court has observed that friendship does not give an accused the license to repeatedly rape a victim, while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting the plea of a man, accused under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. “Even if the parties concerned were friends, friendship does not give any license to the applicant to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her in his friend’s house and beat her mercilessly, as prima facie disclosed by the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, duly corroborated by the medical records,” the Court said. The High Court rejected the defence argument that the delay in lodging the FIR suggested a consensual relationship, holding that the victim’s silence was explained by her age and trauma. “Being a minor, she was under trauma and a sense of shame that had precluded her from disclosing anything to her parents or the police,” the court observed, noting that her statement under Section 183 of BNSS was consistent and medically corroborated Emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court said that friendship could not be used as a defence against repeated acts of sexual violence and physical assault. Finding no merit in the plea, the Court dismissed the application on October 17, 2025.

Case Title: Sumit Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi 

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more 

8.  [HC Suspends Life Term Of Woman Convicted Of Murder] The Delhi High Court has suspended the life sentence of a woman convicted for the murder of her alleged paramour, taking note of her prolonged incarceration and the condition of her three minor children, one of whom, a two-year-old, has been living with her inside prison. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain said that the 35-year-old appellant had already spent over ten years and nine months in jail and that her appeal was unlikely to be heard anytime soon. “We are also concerned about the fact that the appellant is a lady and that her one child, who is barely two years old, is with her in prison, and her aged parents may not be in the best position to take their adequate care,” the Court said while ordering suspension of her sentence pending appeal. Taking into account the duration of incarceration, her conduct, and the pending appeal, the Court said that “keeping in mind the above-noted aspects and also the incarceration period of the appellant and the fact that there is no likelihood of her appeal being heard in the near future, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby suspended.”

Case title: Rajia @ Sabbo v. State

Bench: Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain

Click here to read more 

10. [Udaipur's Taj Lake Palace] The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of an AI-generated video that claimed staff at Udaipur’s Taj Lake Palace poisoned wealthy guests for six months. The Court found the content to be false and misleading, and said its continued circulation would cause irreparable harm to the hotel’s reputation. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order while hearing a suit filed by the Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), a Tata Group company that owns and operates the Taj group of hotels. The Court directed Meta Platforms Inc., which runs Instagram, to take down the video within 36 hours and to share details of the account operator with the plaintiff within three weeks.

The video had been posted on an Instagram page named Travelagio and had garnered over 20,000 views, 134 likes and more than 300 shares. The Court noted that the clip contained fictitious and disparaging claims accusing the hotel’s staff of murdering tourists through poisoning and covering up the incident. “This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff that circulation of such a false video directly infringes upon the Plaintiff’s reputation and grossly misrepresents the Plaintiff’s property Taj Lake Palace, Udaipur, before the public,” Justice Arora observed.

Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. John Doe & Anr.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more 

11. [Contempt Case Over Misconduct Towards Woman Judge]  The Delhi High Court has discharged an advocate from contempt proceedings after accepting his unconditional apology for allegedly misbehaving with a woman Judicial Officer and intimidating her with derogatory and threatening language during Court proceedings. A Division Bench of the High Court observed that the advocate had expressed genuine remorse and assured the Bench that such behaviour would not recur. “He assures that he would always maintain the decorum and dignity of the Court and would not repeat such act in future,” the order recorded. The proceedings originated from a complaint received earlier this year from a Judicial Magistrate posted at Dwarka Courts in South-West Delhi. The Magistrate reported that the advocate had allegedly used offensive and intimidating language in her courtroom during the course of judicial proceedings. The High Court, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, treated the complaint as a case of criminal contempt and initiated proceedings against the advocate.

Case Title: Court on its own motion vs Haresh Singh, Advocate

Bench: Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jai

Click here to read more

12. [Farewell of  Justices Arun Monga, Tara Vitasta Ganju] The Delhi High Court today bid farewell to Justices Arun Monga and Tara Vitasta Ganju, who have been transferred to the Rajasthan High Court and the Karnataka High Court, respectively. Justice Monga was elevated to the Delhi High Court on July 21, 2025, while Justice Ganju was appointed to the Bench on May 18, 2022. The Central Government notified its transfers on October 14. Addressing the Full Court, Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya said the gathering was to bid farewell to the two judges on their transfer from the Court. The Chief Justice said that Justice Monga is a relief-oriented judge who listens patiently and decides decisively. He added that Justice Monga does not hesitate to make course corrections, which reflects his judicial approach. The Chief Justice added that the institution had benefited from his contribution and remembered him as an avid sportsperson and a natural enthusiast.Speaking about Justice Ganju, the Chief Justice said she is known for her ability to grasp the core issues in every matter that comes before her. He expressed confidence that her posting in Karnataka would offer her the opportunity to experience diverse litigation and litigants in a different cultural setting. He concluded by noting that both judges have a long judicial career ahead and extended his best wishes to them.

Farewell: Justices Arun Monga and Tara Vitasta Ganju

Date: 27 October 2025

Click here to read more

13. [Three New Judges Sworn In at Delhi HC] Justices Dinesh Mehta, Avneesh Jhingan and Chandrasekharan Sudha were sworn in as judges of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, October 28, 2025. The oath of office was administered by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya. Justice Mehta and Justice Jhingan earlier served as judges of the Rajasthan High Court, while Justice Sudha was serving at the Kerala High Court. Their appointments were notified by the Central Government on October 14, 2025, following recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium. With their induction, the working strength of the Delhi High Court has risen to 44 judges, against a sanctioned strength of 60.

Swearing-In: Delhi High Court

Date: 28 October 2025

Click here to read more

14.  [Court Restrains Actor Ravi Mohan’s Studio from Using ‘BRO CODE] The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining actor Ravi Mohan’s production company, Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited, from using the trademark 'BRO CODE' as the title of its upcoming Tamil film. The order came in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the makers of the popular alcoholic beverage BroCode. Justice Tejas Karia, while hearing the matter, held that a prima facie case of trademark infringement was made out in favour of the plaintiff. The Court observed that the use of an identical mark in the title of the defendant’s film was likely to mislead consumers into assuming an association between the movie and the beverage brand.“The Plaintiff’s mark has been used in an identical manner in the title of the Defendant’s film without authorization, which amounts to infringement and is likely to create confusion in the minds of consumers regarding association of the Defendant’s film with the Plaintiff,” the Court noted, adding that such use could cause irreparable injury to the brand’s reputation. The bench further held that the balance of convenience was in favour of Indospirit Beverages.

Case Title: INDOSPIRIT BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED V RAVI MOHAN STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

15. [Attempt to Murder] The Delhi High Court has quashed a 17-year-old attempt-to-murder case lodged against academic Prof. Madhu Kishwar, holding that the FIR was a fabricated, retaliatory complaint arising from an alleged altercation with the Basoya family while she was photographing unauthorised constructions in the city. Justice Amit Mahajan, while hearing Kishwar’s plea, said, “The subject FIR appears to be in the nature of defence and a maliciously motivated counter-blast to FIR No. 666/2007 for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner.” The case arose from an incident in which the petitioner had gone to Seva Nagar Market to take photographs of illegal encroachments for documentation for her human-rights organisation Manushi. According to her, members of the Basoya family, who ran shops in the area, objected and assaulted her and her driver to stop her from taking pictures. Following this, Kishwar lodged an FIR, accusing the family of rioting and criminal intimidation.

Case Title: Prof. Madhu Kishwar v. State

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more

16. [Lawyer's misconduct with woman judge] The Delhi High Court has discharged an advocate from contempt proceedings after accepting his unconditional apology for allegedly misbehaving with a woman Judicial Officer and intimidating her with derogatory and threatening language during Court proceedings. A Division Bench of the High Court observed that the advocate had expressed genuine remorse and assured the Bench that such behaviour would not recur. “He assures that he would always maintain the decorum and dignity of the Court and would not repeat such act in future,” the order recorded. The proceedings originated from a complaint received earlier this year from a Judicial Magistrate posted at Dwarka Courts in South-West Delhi. The Magistrate reported that the advocate had allegedly used offensive and intimidating language in her courtroom during the course of judicial proceedings. The High Court, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, treated the complaint as a case of criminal contempt and initiated proceedings against the advocate.

Case Title: Court on its own motion vs Haresh Singh, Advocate

Bench: Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

17. [DeepSeek AI] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Government to clarify how it plans to address the concerns over misuse of the Chinese-owned artificial intelligence chatbot DeepSeek. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela posed the query while hearing a petition filed by advocate Bhavna Sharma, who contended that such AI platforms pose significant risks to individual privacy and could be detrimental to India’s sovereignty and security.“There is no doubt that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the initial stage. How is the Ministry going to tackle this?” the Court remarked while asking Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ishkaran Bhandari to seek instructions from the concerned ministry. Accordingly, the Bench granted Bhandari time to obtain instructions and noted that the case would be heard along with other petitions concerning similar issues related to artificial intelligence.

Case Title: Bhavna Sharma v Union of India & Ors

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

Click here to read more

18. [HC Sentences Man to One Month in Jail for Threatening Court Commissioner] The Delhi High Court has sentenced a man to one month’s simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for criminal contempt after he allegedly threatened a Court-appointed commissioner with a gun during a local commission proceeding in Faridabad. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, in a detailed 21-page judgment, held that the man’s conduct amounted to a deliberate interference in the administration of justice.“The Court, therefore, holds that the conduct of the Contemnor clearly constitutes criminal contempt. Accordingly, in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month along with ₹2,000 as fine. If there is non-payment of fine, the sentence shall extend for a further period of 15 days,” the Court said.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v Nitin Bansal

Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Click here to read more

19. [‘Ba***ds of Bollywood’] The Delhi High Court will hear on November 10 a defamation suit filed by an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede against Netflix and others over his alleged defamatory portrayal in the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood”, directed by Aryan Khan. A Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has directed all parties involved in the matter to submit their written statements before the next hearing.During the proceedings, Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared on behalf of Wankhede, while Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar represented Netflix. On October 8, the Court had issued summons in Wankhede’s defamation suit against Netflix and others over his alleged defamatory portrayal in the series. While issuing notice on Wankhede’s plea for interim relief, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav had listed the matter for October 30.

Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.

Click here to read more

20.[PIL Against CBFC Certification for The Taj Story] The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) certificate granted to the feature film The Taj Story, starring Paresh Rawal. Notably, The Taj Story is scheduled for nationwide release on October 31, 2025. The petitions were filed by lawyers Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas, who contended that the film attempts to spread fabricated narratives and has the potential to create communal disharmony. During the hearing, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the reliefs sought. After a brief hearing, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petitions. The Court granted them liberty to approach the Central Government by invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

Case Title: Chetna Gautam v. The Union of India & Ors

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

Click here to read more

21.  [Delhi HC Questions Tattoo Ban on Right Forearm for Forces] The Delhi High Court has questioned the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) over recruitment guidelines that disqualify candidates from joining the armed forces solely because they have a tattoo on their right forearm. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla prima facie observed, “We do not understand how the mere presence of a tattoo on the right forearm of a candidate can disqualify him for recruitment to the Forces.”The Court was hearing a petition filed by a candidate who had been rejected for the post of Motor Mechanic Vehicle in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) due to a tattoo on his right forearm. The petitioner, however, stated that he is willing to undergo surgery to remove the tattoo if permitted to proceed with recruitment.

Case Title: Vipin Kumar vs Union of India

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

22. [Official Secrets Act Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to record the testimony of a U.S.-based prosecution witness and businessman C. Edmonds Allen through video conferencing in a case filed under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923, involving arms dealer Abhishek Verma. Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order on a plea filed by the CBI challenging a trial court order that had rejected its request to examine Allen via video conferencing.The CBI had registered a case on August 28, 2012, under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, following a complaint from the Ministry of Defence.Justice Narula observed that while the trial court’s concern about possible leakage of classified material “cannot be dismissed as fanciful,” the solution lay not in prohibition but regulation through adequate safeguards.Invoking Rule 18 of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, the Court relaxed the requirement of obtaining the respondents’ consent under Rule 5.3.11 for this limited purpose.Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the CBI’s plea.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v Sh Abhishek Verma & Ors

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Click here to read more