Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [April 27-May 3, 2026]

1. [Satyendar Jain Defamation Case] A Delhi court has set aside a magistrate’s order taking cognizance and issuing summons against BJP MLA Karnail Singh in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain, holding that the Trial Court had adopted an incorrect approach while dealing with statutory exceptions at the pre-summoning stage. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts allowed Singh’s revision plea and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The Court clarified that its order was confined to procedural aspects and that no findings were recorded on the merits of the allegations. The revisional court observed that the Trial Court erred in holding that the applicability of exceptions to defamation could be examined only at the stage of trial. It held that such an approach was inconsistent with law, particularly at the stage of issuance of process. “The issue raised by the revisionist goes to the root of the matter and directly affects the legality of the order issuing process. The Ld. Trial Court was required to undertake a limited examination of the alleged statements, the material on record, and the exceptions pleaded, to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed,” the Court noted.

Case Title: Karnail Singh, MLA v. Satyender Kumar Jain

Bench: Special Judge Jitendra Singh

Click here to read more

2. [Sucheta Dalal] A Delhi District Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Moneywise Media LLP challenging an ex-parte interim injunction, holding that the appeal was premature and not maintainable while proceedings remain pending before the trial court. District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena allowed an application filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of the appeal, ruling that the statutory framework under Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) had not been violated. The appeal arose from an order dated April 4, 2026, passed by a Senior Civil Judge in a civil suit filed by Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara against Google LLC and others. The trial court had granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining certain publications. Moneywise Media LLP, which was not specifically named as a defendant but was described as a “John Doe/Ashok Kumar,” challenged the order, alleging that it was passed mechanically and in violation of principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem. The appellant contended that it had been effectively targeted without being properly impleaded and argued that the injunction extended beyond the scope of the pleadings. It also claimed that the trial court failed to properly apply the three-fold test for grant of interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Opposing the appeal, the respondent argued that it was filed prematurely, as the application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was still pending before the trial court and had been listed within the statutory 30-day period. It was submitted that, under settled law, an appeal against an ex-parte interim order is maintainable only if the trial court fails to decide the application within the prescribed timeframe.

Case Title: Moneywise Media LLP v. Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara

Bench: District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena

Click here to read more

3. [I-Pac director Vinesh Chandel] A Delhi court has granted regular bail to Vinesh Chandel, director of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on April 13 in an alleged money laundering case. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal of the Patiala House Court passed the order, recording that the ED did not oppose the bail plea. The Court noted that since the prosecution chose not to contest the application, the stringent “twin conditions” under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would not apply. “The learned Special Public Prosecutor has been given the opportunity to oppose the bail, but he has not done so, and hence the twin conditions won't be applicable,” the court observed. According to the ED, Chandel is a founder and holds a 33% stake in PAC Consulting Private Limited and is under investigation in a money laundering case arising out of an FIR registered by the Delhi Police. The agency has alleged that the company was involved in multiple financial irregularities, including routing of funds through third parties, issuance of bogus invoices, and raising unsecured loans without legitimate business backing. It further claimed that both domestic and international hawala channels were used to move funds. “Investigation has further revealed that Indian PAC Consulting Pvt Ltd was involved in laundering proceeds of crime to the tune of multiple crores. The amount detected so far is about ₹50 crore,” the ED stated.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

4. [IRS officer daughter's murder case] A Delhi court has remanded Rahul Meena, the 19-year-old domestic help accused of murdering the daughter of a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, to seven days of judicial custody. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Deepika Thakaran of Saket Court passed the order after allowing the Delhi Police’s application seeking further judicial detention of the accused. Meena was produced before the court upon completion of his four-day police custody. During the hearing, the prosecution submitted that further custody was necessary as part of the ongoing investigation. The court, after considering the submissions, granted seven days of judicial custody, shifting the accused from police remand to jail. Meena had earlier been taken into police custody for custodial interrogation following his arrest in connection with the incident. With the expiry of that remand period, the investigating agency sought judicial custody to continue the probe. Prior to his remand, as per reports, a police team took him to the crime scene in southeast Delhi’s Kailash Hills to recreate the events leading up to the murder. The 22-year-old victim, an engineering graduate, was found critically injured at her residence. According to investigators, she was allegedly strangled using a mobile phone charger and sustained head injuries inflicted with a heavy object. She was rushed to a hospital by her parents, who had returned home from the gym, but later succumbed to her injuries.

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Deepika Thakaran

Click here to read more

5. [Somnath Bharti in 2014 Assault case] A Delhi court has acquitted former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA and ex-Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti in a 2014 case alleging assault on African women in the Malviya Nagar area, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted Bharti and 17 others in the case. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue Court delivered the verdict, observing that key prosecution witnesses had not deposed before the court, rendering their statements inadmissible. “The statements of the witnesses were inadmissible as they failed to depose before the court,” the court noted while acquitting Bharti of the charges levelled against him. The case stemmed from an incident on the intervening night of January 15 and 16, 2014, when Bharti, then serving as Delhi’s Law Minister, along with others, allegedly reached Khirki Extension in Malviya Nagar. It was alleged that they assaulted Ugandan women residing in rented accommodation, accusing them of involvement in illegal activities including drug use and prostitution. An FIR in the matter was registered on the directions of a court after a Ugandan woman filed a complaint on January 18, 2014, seeking action against unidentified persons.

Case Title: State v. Somnath Bharti

Bench: ACJM Neha Mittal

Click here to read more

6. [Delhi Excise Policy] The Delhi High Court has deferred hearing in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other accused in the Delhi excise policy case, after noting that the complete trial court record had not yet been received. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was to hear the matter, directed that the entire record be summoned positively by the next day and adjourned the case for hearing on May 4 at 2:30 PM. “I have not received the entire record from the trial court. I will hear the matter on Monday,” the Court observed. At the outset, Advocate Farrukh Khan, appearing in the matter, informed the Court that an interlocutory application had been filed. Notably, Kejriwal, Sisodia and co-accused had chosen not to appear in person or through counsel during the proceedings. The Court also recorded that some respondents had already filed their replies and granted a final opportunity to the remaining parties to do so by May 2. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S. V. Raju and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) D.P. Singh, were present in court when the matter was taken up. In a connected development, the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking expunction of adverse remarks made by the special judge is also listed for hearing on May 4. The case pertains to the CBI’s appeal challenging the discharge of the accused in the alleged irregularities surrounding the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

7. [Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia boycott Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma] Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal has written to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court expressing his “inability, in conscience, to participate in further proceedings” in a pending criminal revision petition. In a detailed and strongly worded letter, Kejriwal emphasised that his decision was not rooted in “anger” or “disrespect,” but arose from a “painful and inescapable impression” regarding the fairness of the proceedings. “This letter is not written in anger, nor in disrespect… it is written with pain, with humility, and with an abiding faith in the role of judiciary,” he stated.The letter follows the dismissal of Kejriwal’s earlier plea seeking recusal of the judge. Referring to that order, he wrote: “My well-grounded apprehensions… have not been removed. After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged… was received and answered as a personal attack.” Kejriwal underscored that the issue at hand was not merely personal but touched upon broader public confidence in the judicial system. “This letter touches upon… the faith of ordinary citizens in the impartiality of the judicial process,” he said, adding that the principle that justice must not only be done but also “be seen to be done” stood at the heart of his concerns.

Click here and here to read more

8. [ED Plea Challenging Acquittal In Excise Summons Case] The Delhi High Court has issued a fresh notice to Arvind Kejriwal in petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging his acquittal in two cases related to non-appearance before the agency in the excise policy probe. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the earlier notice issued to Kejriwal had not been served, as per the court registry’s report. “Registry reports that (he is) not served. I will issue fresh notice. Respondent has not been served,” the Court observed while directing issuance of a fresh notice. The matter has now been listed for hearing on July 22. The cases arise from complaints filed by the ED before the trial court, alleging that Kejriwal deliberately failed to comply with multiple summonses issued to him during the investigation into the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. The agency had contended that he intentionally avoided joining the probe and raised “frivolous objections” to justify his absence. Before the High Court, counsel for the ED argued that the trial court committed a “grave error” in acquitting Kejriwal despite there being no dispute that the summonses were issued and received by him. However, in its January 22 orders, the trial court held that the ED failed to establish intentional disobedience. It observed that the agency could not prove valid service of summons through email or demonstrate that such service complied with the requirements under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

9. [Lawrance Bishnoi] The Delhi High Court has closed proceedings on a petition filed by gangster Lawrence Bishnoi challenging the proposed release of the docuseries “Lawrence of Punjab” on ZEE5, observing that no further adjudication was required at this stage in light of the Centre’s advisories against its release. The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had already issued advisories cautioning the OTT platform against releasing the content. In view of these developments, the Court held that the grievance raised in the petition no longer survived for consideration. During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that unless the advisories issued by the Centre were set aside by a competent court, the platform would not be in a position to release the docuseries. It further clarified that if the makers attempted to release the content in any modified form, such as by changing names or altering presentation, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies at that stage. “As and when they do something, you can always come back. Today unless the advisories are set aside, they cannot release,” the Court observed, indicating that the issue was presently premature. Senior counsel appearing for the OTT platform informed the Court that the advisories dated April 23 and April 24 were being challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as they were based on inputs from Punjab Police. It was also argued that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, given that the underlying concerns and inputs originated from Punjab.

Case Title: Lawrence Bishnoi vs Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

10. [POSH Act; Delhi University Professor] The Delhi High Court has held that while employers retain the inherent authority to suspend an employee facing allegations of sexual harassment, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory safeguards, principles of natural justice, and without attaching any stigma. The Court has further clarified that institutions cannot create parallel or ad hoc fact-finding mechanisms outside the framework of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act), reiterating that the statute provides a complete and self-contained mechanism for inquiry into such complaints. A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the suspension of a college principal, holding the impugned order to be legally unsustainable as it was stigmatic and founded on an impermissible preliminary inquiry conducted by an ad hoc committee. The Court, however, clarified that the employer is at liberty to pass a fresh suspension order, provided it adheres to the law and avoids prejudicial language.

Case Title: Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more