Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [August 25- August 31, 2025]

1. [PM Modi Degree Row] The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order directing Delhi University (DU) to allow inspection of records of all students who cleared the BA examination in 1978, the year Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have graduated from the institution. Justice Sachin Datta delivered the judgment, ruling in favour of the university’s plea challenging the CIC directive. On August 20, the pronouncement had been deferred as the judge was sitting in the UAPA Tribunal and not holding regular court. Earlier, on February 27, the High Court had reserved its verdict in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for DU, had argued that the CIC order must be quashed, while clarifying that the university had no objection to presenting the degree before the court. He stated: “The university has no objection to showing the record to the court. A Bachelor of Arts degree from 1978 exists.”On the other hand, the RTI applicant maintained that awarding degrees was a public act, falling squarely within the RTI’s ambit, and that DU, as a public authority, could not withhold disclosure on grounds of privacy or fiduciary duty.It may be recalled that in July 2023, the High Court had refused DU’s request for an early hearing of its petition challenging the CIC order. The CIC, in its order dated December 21, 2016, had directed the university to allow inspection of BA course records for the year 1978. This order, however, had been stayed by the High Court on January 23, 2017.

Case Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr. Pronouncemen

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more 

2. [Smriti Irani RTI Records Row] The Delhi High Court has clarified that Section 8(3) of the Right to Information Act does not automatically override the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j). The Court held that information of a personal nature remains protected unless a “demonstrable and compelling public interest clearly outweighs the privacy right in question,” emphasizing that statutory provisions must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees. The court made these observations while quashing orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed disclosure of the academic records of former Union Minister Smriti Irani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Single Judge Bench underscored that the right to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is not absolute but subject to the exemptions set out under Section 8(1). The Court further noted: “The mere act of publishing certain information on some occasions does not dilute the legal protection accorded to personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.” The controversy stemmed from an RTI application filed by Mohd. Naushadudin, who had sought details of Smriti Irani’s Class X and XII academic records from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority rejected the request. However, on January 17, 2017, the CIC directed the CBSE to facilitate the inspection of the relevant records and provide certified copies of the documents sought by the applicant. The High Court held the CIC’s directive unsustainable, observing that there was “no public interest implicit in the disclosure of the information sought.”

Case Title: Delhi University v. Neeraj & Ors. and connected matters

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

3.[RTI Act] The Delhi High Court has clarified that the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and accountability of public authorities, not to provide “fodder for sensationalism.” Delivering a stern reminder on the intended spirit of the law, the Court cautioned against its misuse for personal vendettas or publicity-driven pursuits. While setting aside orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s university degree and Union Minister Smriti Irani’s school examination results, the Court pulled up the CIC for overstepping its mandate, cautioning that the transparency law cannot be reduced to a tool for sensationalism. Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the verdict in University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr., ruled that marksheets, results, degree certificates, and other academic records of individuals, even those holding public office, constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. “The CIC misdirected itself in relying upon anecdotal material and subjective assessments and drawing conclusions therefrom. Whether or not the Delhi University has followed the practice of publishing certain results on its website is not determinative of, and cannot have any bearing on, the interpretation and scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.” the Court observed.

Case Title: Delhi University v. Neeraj & Ors. and connected matters

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

4. [Kala Kanoon’s Notification] The ongoing agitation by lawyers in Delhi against the August 13 notification of the Lieutenant Governor has been suspended after the Union Home Minister Amit Shah agreed to meet Bar representatives to resolve their concerns. The breakthrough came after a meeting between Bar leaders and a representative of the Home Minister, following days of protests, demonstrations, and abstinence from work in district courts.A statement issued from the office of the Delhi Police Commissioner confirmed that the notification will not be operationalised until all stakeholders are heard. The controversial notification; issued by the Delhi government on August 13, designated all police stations in the capital as places for police personnel to present evidence and depose before courts through video conferencing. Lawyers termed the move a “Kala Kanoon”, arguing that it dilutes open court principles, undermines fair trial rights, and disproportionately empowers the police.The coordination committee of All District Courts Bar Associations had submitted representations to both the Delhi Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor earlier this month, objecting to the measure. They maintained that forcing virtual depositions from police stations would erode transparency and restrict meaningful cross-examination. In a joint communication, Bar leaders announced suspension of demonstrations and abstinence from work “till the final outcome of the discussions and deliberations with Amit Shah.” The statement also expressed gratitude to the Bar Council of Delhi, Supreme Court Bar Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Bar Association, and several other state bar bodies for their solidarity.

Circular By: Coordination Committee, All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi 

Date: August 28, 2025

Click here to read more

5. [PIL Against LG Notification] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi that designates video conference rooms in police stations as “Designated Places” for recording the evidence of police personnel through video conferencing. Filed by Advocate Kapil Madan through Advocate Gurmukh Singh Arora and Ayushi Bisht, the PIL assails the legality, validity, and constitutional propriety of the notification issued by the Home (General) Department, GNCTD, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. According to the plea, the notification strikes at the very root of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution by permitting prosecution witnesses, namely, police officials, to depose from within their own official precincts. Such an arrangement, it argues, undermines the solemnity of judicial proceedings, facilitates tutoring or selective reference to departmental records, and irreversibly tilts the adversarial balance in favour of the prosecution. It has been further pointed out that neither the Bar associations nor the judicial authorities were consulted before the issuance of the notification, making it arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and ultra vires. It stresses that a witness deposing from his own workplace, in the presence of colleagues and superiors, cannot be equated to one deposing before a judicial officer in open court.

Title: Kapil Madan Versus Union of India

Date: 26 August 2025

Click here to read more

6. [PFI Chief Abubacker Medical Plea] The Delhi High Court on Friday, 29 August 2025, directed the jail authorities to file a medical report in connection with a plea by Popular Front of India (PFI) chairman Abubacker E. He has sought permission to undergo treatment at a private hospital. At present, he is receiving medical care at AIIMS, New Delhi. Abubacker, who is accused of supervising recruitment, radicalization, and organizing terror camps, among other charges, was arrested on 22 September 2022 by the National Investigation Agency and is currently under judicial custody in Tihar Jail.Abubacker, who is accused of supervising recruitment, radicalization, and organizing terror camps, among other charges, was arrested on 22 September 2022 by the National Investigation Agency and is currently under judicial custody in Tihar Jail.Justice Ravinder Dudeja not only called for the medical report but also issued a notice to the NIA, seeking its reply. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 26 November 2025. During the hearing, Abubacker’s counsel argued that the treatment being provided in custody was inadequate and alleged that the jail staff had been hostile towards him. It was further submitted that the accused has a fundamental right to avail treatment at a hospital of his choosing.Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, appearing for the NIA, maintained that the applicant was already being treated at one of the country’s premier medical institutions, which is AIIMS, and questioned the need for a private facility. He further added that a medical report from AIIMS would clarify the need for the treatment.

Case Title: Abubacker E v. National Investigation Agency, Through its Director

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

7. [Chinese Manjha Ban Row] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking strict enforcement of the ban on the widespread and hazardous use of Chinese Manjha in the National Capital. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has sought responses from the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Union of India, and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The respondents have been directed to file their counter affidavits, and the matter has been scheduled for further hearing on November 19, 2025. The PIL, filed by Gaurav Gupta through Advocate Sanyam Rastogi, emphasises the urgent need to curb the sale and use of Chinese Manjha, a synthetic kite string coated with powdered glass or metal that has been banned for causing serious injuries and fatalities. The plea also calls for the effective implementation of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, including the appointment of adjudicating officers, and urges the Delhi Police to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for investigating cases related to its sale and use.The petition highlights that despite multiple prohibitory orders, including a Delhi Government notification of January 10, 2017 and a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order dated July 11, 2017, the use of Chinese Manjha continues unabated across the city.

Case Title: Gaurav Gupta vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi 

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

Click here to read more

8. [PFI's plea against ban] The Delhi High Court on Monday, 14 July 2025, reserved its order on the maintainability of a petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s decision upholding the five-year ban on the organisation. The PFI had moved the court against the order dated 21 March 2024, passed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal. In that order, the Tribunal upheld the Centre’s decision to impose a ban on the organisation, declaring it an unlawful association under the UAPA.Appearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, counsel for PFI argued on the maintainability of the petition. The Central government had objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision, delivered by a bench headed by a High Court judge, could not be challenged under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Contesting this, counsel for PFI argued that this Court has previously held that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable. He submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. He further contended that the Tribunal constituted under Section 5 of the UAPA is a separate entity. While it does exercise judicial power, the mere fact of such power does not exclude the availability of jurisdiction under Article 226. After briefly hearing submissions from both sides, the Court reserved its order. The bench stated: “Heard. Orders reserved on the maintainability of the petition.

Case Title: Popular Front of India vs Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

9. [Minister Kapil Mishra Tweets Case] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, August 29, 2025, reserved its order on an application filed by Delhi Law Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra, who sought copies of certain documents connected to the supplementary chargesheet filed before a trial court in a case against him over his controversial 2020 tweets, in which he referred to Shaheen Bagh as a “mini Pakistan” and framed the Delhi Assembly elections as a battle between “India and Pakistan.”The matter was heard by a bench led by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, before whom Mishra challenged a Sessions Court order that had dismissed his plea against the summons issued by a Magisterial Court in the case. The High Court had in March 2025, declined to stay the trial court proceedings. The case stems from an FIR lodged in 2020 on a complaint by the Returning Officer’s office, which alleged that Mishra’s tweets violated the Model Code of Conduct and provisions of the Representation of the People Act during the Assembly polls.

Case Title: Kapil Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

10. [Plea Over Costly Private School Books] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition alleging that private schools are commercialising education and systematically excluding students from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) by forcing them to buy costly books from private publishers. A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela sought responses from the Delhi government, NCERT and CBSE. The plea, filed by Jasmit Singh Sahni through advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, says that despite repeated directions from the Ministry of Education, CBSE and the School Bag Policy 2020, many schools continue to prescribe private publisher books that cost up to Rs 12,000 a year, even though NCERT books are available for under Rs 700. "This widespread practice not only violates CBSE bye-laws and RTE Rules but also excludes children admitted under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act who cannot afford these materials, thereby defeating the very objective of inclusive education,” the plea states.

Case Title: Jasmit Singh Sahni versus Union of India and Ors.

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

Click here to read more