Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [August 4- August 8, 2025]
1. [Udaipur Files] The Delhi High Court on Thursday cleared the release of Udaipur Files, rejecting a plea by Kanhaiya Lal murder case accused Mohd. Javed to stall the film. Set to hit theatres on Friday, August 8, the movie is based on the 2022 Udaipur killing. Javed claimed its content, allegedly mirroring the chargesheet, would prejudice his right to a fair trial. The Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found no merit in the plea, noting, “The petitioner has not been able to establish a prima facie case in his favour.”
On the question of balance of convenience, the Court observed that no harm to the petitioner’s right to a fair trial is likely to result from the film’s release. “The trial will be conducted by a professional judge uninfluenced by what is being depicted in the film,” the Court noted.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed v. Union of India
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Click here to read more
2. [Terror Funding Case] The Delhi High Court will on August 12 hear MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh’s plea challenging a trial court order directing him to bear travel expenses as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament. Appearing before the Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Senior Advocate N Hariharan sought modification of the order, stating that it was “unjust and unreasonable” and arguing that the order prevented Rashid from representing his constituency. Justice Bhambhani said that such costs are ordinarily borne by the person seeking it. The matter will be heard further on August 12.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. National Investigation Agency
Bench: Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Click here to read more
3. [PIL on Repeat Sexual Offence Complainants] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions from the authorities to maintain a district-wise police database of complainants who have filed multiple rape or sexual offence complaints, along with a mandate to collect identity proof, preferably Aadhaar, from such complainants. The PIL, filed by men’s rights activist Shonee Kapoor through Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh, alleges rampant misuse of rape laws, noting that several complainants have filed multiple sexual offence complaints against different individuals. In view of this, the Court directed all parties, including the Union of India, the Government of NCT of Delhi, and the Delhi Police, to file their responses.
Case Title: Shonee Kapoor v. Union of India & Ors
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Click here to read more
4. [NEET-UG] In a significant ruling on NEET-UG, the Delhi High Court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to streamline biometric verification for future exams, while upholding the creation of a grievance redressal mechanism. The NTA had challenged a single judge’s order granting grace marks to certain candidates based on the Supreme Court’s formula in Disha Panchal v. Union of India (2018). The Court rejected the plea for grace marks, stating that, "There is also a larger issue that concerns the Court viz. the chaotic consequences of extending ‘marks improvisation’ for individual delays in biometric authentication for reasons not attributable to the testing agency. Such an approach would open the floodgates to claims by candidates who experienced even minor technical delays in biometric authentication,” the Court added.
Case Title: National Testing Agency v. Satya Nishth & Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta
Click here to read more
5. [Diageo Scotland bribery case] The Delhi High Court on Monday, 4 August 2025, said that it would hear on 12 August the plea filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking to quash a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) First Information Report (FIR) registered against him in connection with the Diageo Scotland bribery case. This is the fourth case filed against the Congress MP. It stems from a preliminary inquiry started by the CBI in 2018 to examine alleged irregularities in approvals given by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board during the tenure of his father, P. Chidambaram, as Finance Minister. In this case, the CBI has accused Karti of using his influence to help alcoholic beverage company Diageo Scotland after a ban was imposed on the duty-free sale of its whisky in India.
Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Click here to read more
6. [DHFL Bank Fraud Case] The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Kapil Wadhawan, former promoter and ex-chairman-cum-MD of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL), in the ₹34,926 crore bank fraud case. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in a 27-page order, said, “The Court cannot permit the release of a person who is prima facie the mastermind of a deep-rooted financial fraud, especially when the trial is at a nascent stage.” The case involves DHFL, its promoters Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan, and others, accused of conspiring to cheat a consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India.
Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Click here to read more
7. [ABJS Election Symbol Plea] The Delhi High Court on August 5 issued notice on a plea by the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) seeking a common election symbol for the upcoming Bihar Assembly polls. The party, established in 1951 and tracing its roots to the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee, moved the court after receiving no response from the Election Commission of India. Justice Mini Pushkarna sought the ECI’s reply, which was accepted by its counsel. The Court also granted time to the poll body to file its reply.
Case Title: Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. Election Commission of India
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Click here to read more
8. [POSCO case] The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to a man accused of raping and murdering his 8-year-old cousin, observing that mere public outcry and media coverage do not diminish the gravity of the offence. Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the accused’s claim that he was falsely implicated due to media pressure and public outcry. The Court said, “At the stage of bail, the Court cannot minutely examine the evidence on record. The broad picture recorded above shows the gruesome manner in which an eight-year-old girl was raped and killed, that too by her own cousin. Merely because there was public outcry and media coverage of the incident, the gravity of the offence does not diminish.”
Case Title: Pradeep @ Piddi vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Click here to read more
9. [ED vs Bhandari Fugitive Tag] The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday, August 8, opposed UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari’s plea challenging a trial court order declaring him a “fugitive economic offender,” arguing that Bhandari had concealed foreign assets. ASG S.V. Raju and Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain, appearing for the ED, opposed his plea before a bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the ED initiated prosecution without completing tax assessment proceedings, contending there was no basis to conclude alleged tax evasion exceeded Rs 100 crore. ASG Raju countered that the trial court had an assessment stating Bhandari unlawfully acquired assets worth Rs 655 crore.
Case Title: Sanjay Bhandari vs Enforcement Directorate
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Click here to read more
10. [Drishyam 2 Producer FIR Case] The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to quash criminal proceedings against Drishyam 2 producer Kumar Mangat Pathak of M/s Panorama Studios in a financial fraud case related to the film’s overseas rights. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna declined to keep the petition pending or grant interim relief, noting the investigation was at a nascent stage and Pathak had joined the probe. The petition was accordingly disposed of. The case stems from allegations of a Rs 4.3 crore fraud over Chinese-language distribution rights for the film in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. An FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing in June 2025 names Pathak, Bharat Sevak, and others for conspiracy, forgery, and misrepresentation. The complaint alleges forged documents were used to induce investment, while Panorama Studios denied receiving the funds, claiming they went to an unrelated account. Pathak argued the dispute was commercial and produced evidence limiting Sevak’s authority.
Case Title: Mr. Kumar Mangat Pathak v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Click here to read more