Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [April 6-12, 2026]

1. [Sukesh Chandrashekhar] A Delhi court has granted bail to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar in a money laundering case, holding that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order. Allowing the plea under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court directed Chandrashekhar’s release on a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with sureties of the like amount. It also imposed standard conditions, including a bar on contacting or influencing witnesses, mandatory disclosure of address and mobile number, surrender of passport, and prior permission for foreign travel. "Accused Sukash Chandershekar @ Sukesh is admitted to bail on furnishing PB & SB in sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. The accused shall not contact, influence or coerce any person or witness connected with the present trial. The accused shall furnish his address and mobile phone number by way of a compliance report before the court upon release on bail. The same shall also be communicated to the investigating officer by the accused. The accused shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court and shall not travel outside India without permission from the court," the Court ordered.

Case Title: ED v. Sukash Chandershekar @ Sukesh

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

2. [Forged CM Yogi Adityanath's letter] A Delhi court has recently convicted a man for forging an official letter purportedly issued by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a bid to secure a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket for the 2019 Uttar Pradesh Assembly by-elections. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Courts, in a judgment dated March 30, held accused Shivaji Yadav guilty of offences under Sections 465 (forgery) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code. “The misuse of the names of public functionaries is often dismissed as trivial, yet when it assumes the form of a forged official act, it strikes at the very foundation of public trust,” the Court observed while convicting the accused. The matter has been listed for sentencing on April 20. The case originated from a letter dated June 10, 2019, allegedly written by the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister to the Prime Minister recommending that Shivaji Yadav be granted a BJP ticket from the Lucknow Cantt constituency. The suspicious communication, received by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), raised red flags and eventually led to a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During the investigation, it was found that the letter was fabricated and had not been issued by the Chief Minister’s Office. Officials in Lucknow confirmed that the purported document neither bore the authentic signature of the Chief Minister nor originated from official channels.

Case Title: CBI v. Shivaji Yadav

Bench: ACJM Jyoti Maheshwari

Click here to read more

3. [Sterling Biotech Case] A Delhi court has recently granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara, directing intermediaries including Google LLC and Meta Platforms to remove and de-index allegedly defamatory online content linking him and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma of the Tis Hazari Courts passed the order while hearing a civil suit seeking damages and permanent injunction against the publication and continued circulation of what the plaintiff described as false and disparaging material. The court directed the defendants, including online platforms and unknown entities (John Does), to de-list, de-reference and remove URLs carrying the impugned content from search results within 36 hours. It further restrained them from publishing or republishing any material concerning Sandesara and his family in connection with the alleged bank fraud case during the pendency of the suit. Sandesara contended that despite subsequent legal developments, including proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, several media reports continued to portray him and his family as “fugitives”, “fraudsters” and “money launderers”. He argued that such content remained widely accessible online, causing ongoing and irreparable harm to his reputation.

Case Title: Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara v. Google LLC & Ors.

Bench: Sr. Civil Judge Richa Sharma

Click here to read more

4. [Rana Ayyub] The Delhi High Court was informed by the Central government and the Delhi Police that social media platform X could lose its safe harbour protection in India for allegedly failing to act against posts by journalist Rana Ayyub deemed offensive. The submissions were made before a bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav through a short note filed by the authorities, asserting that the platform had failed to comply with its statutory obligations despite having “actual knowledge” of the allegedly unlawful content. According to the government, the Delhi Police had issued notices to X in September 2025 and December 2025, specifically requesting the removal of certain tweets posted by Ayyub. These posts allegedly contained objectionable remarks concerning Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The authorities further pointed out that in January 2025, a trial court had directed the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Ayyub in connection with the same posts. This, they argued, strengthened the obligation on the intermediary to act promptly.

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

5. [Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking recusal] The Central Bureau of Investigation has opposed before the Delhi High Court a plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and four others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing its appeal in the Delhi excise policy case. In a detailed 39 page affidavit, the CBI strongly contested the allegations made by the petitioners, who had claimed a likelihood of bias on the part of the judge due to her alleged ideological association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. The plea had pointed out that Justice Sharma had attended events organised by the body. Rejecting this contention, the agency argued that mere participation in legal seminars cannot be construed as evidence of ideological bias, especially when such events are not political in nature. It stated that such claims are speculative and lack any substantive basis. The affidavit described the allegations as “unscrupulous and sweeping,” asserting that they amounted to an attempt to scandalise the court and interfere with the administration of justice. It further stated that raising such grounds could attract proceedings for contempt of court.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

6. [Christian Michel] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking his release from jail in the ₹3,600 crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam. A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that there was no merit in the plea filed by the British national, who was extradited from Dubai to India in December 2018. Michel had challenged both the validity of Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty and a trial court order dated August 7, 2025, which had rejected his application for release under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Article 17 of the treaty permits the requesting state to prosecute an extradited individual not only for the specific offences for which extradition was granted, but also for connected offences. Michel argued that this provision violated the principle of speciality, contending that he could only be tried for the exact offences forming the basis of his extradition. Rejecting this contention, the High Court declined to interfere with the treaty provision or the trial court’s decision, effectively upholding the legal framework under which Michel continues to face prosecution in multiple related cases. Michel had also argued that he had already undergone more than seven years in custody, having completed this period on December 4, 2025, and therefore was entitled to release under Section 436A CrPC, which provides for bail when an undertrial has spent half of the maximum prescribed sentence in custody. However, the Court found no grounds to grant relief on this basis, affirming the trial court’s earlier rejection of his plea.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

7. [Child Sexual Exploitation Material Case] The Delhi High Court has ruled that the absence of identifiable victims or conclusive proof of age cannot be a valid ground to discharge accused persons in cases involving Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM), reinforcing a victim-centric and purpose-driven interpretation of the law. The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma set aside a Sessions Court order that had discharged the accused in a case registered under Section 15(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 120B of the IPC. “In contrast, the present case concerns the applicability of Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, which deals with punishment for storing, collecting, and further transmitting CSEM. In cases of this nature, the victims depicted in such material are most often unidentified and untraceable; their parentage and addresses remain unknown, and they cannot be produced before the Court. In such circumstances, the rigid application of the age-determination procedure under Section 34 of the POCSO Act read with Section 94 of the JJ Act would be wholly impractical and unjust. Applying such stringent requirements would effectively deny justice to the victims, as most would never be traced for obvious reasons, thereby rendering the protective framework of the law ineffective”, the Court observed.

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State and Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

8. [WhatsApp Ban Case] The Delhi High Court has disposed of a batch of petitions challenging the banning of WhatsApp accounts, holding that the petitioners must avail the statutory remedy provided under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The Court emphasised that an efficacious grievance redressal mechanism exists under Rule 3A of the Rules, which provides for an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee. The order was passed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while dealing with petitions filed by practising advocates Reepak Kansal, Dr. Adish C Aggarwala, and Rohit Pandey. The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging the banning of their accounts by WhatsApp, alleging that the action was arbitrary and lacked transparency. They also sought restoration of their data, which they claimed remained inaccessible even after the accounts were reinstated. “The petitioners in these writ petitions may be correct in contending that their grievance has not been fully mitigated, however, the same will have to be looked into by the Appellate Committee in accordance with the extant rules and regulations”, the Court observed. During the course of the proceedings, WhatsApp informed the Court that the bans imposed on the petitioners’ accounts had already been lifted in accordance with its internal policy guidelines. However, the petitioners submitted that their grievance had not been fully resolved, as the data previously stored in their accounts was still not accessible. They argued that this had caused serious inconvenience, particularly given their professional reliance on the platform for communication and documentation.

Case Title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India And Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

9. [Income Tax Dispute] The Delhi High Court has granted partial relief to Huawei Telecommunications India in income tax proceedings, setting aside reassessment and special audit directions for the financial year 2013–14 while upholding similar actions for 2015–16. A Division Bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar delivered the ruling in a matter arising out of search and seizure operations conducted by the Income Tax Department India in 2022. “It is clear from the above extract that as contended by Mr. Rai, the intent of the legislature in introducing the words ―volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialized nature of business activity of the assessee‖ was to expand the scope of the powers available to the Assessing Officer under Section 142(2A) of the Act, because the words ―nature and complexity which existed earlier were being given a restrictive meaning. As such, the facts that the accounts of the petitioner are voluminous, and there is multiplicity of transactions in the accounts of the petitioner, would be sufficient for the Assessing Officer to exercise the power under Section 142(2A) of the Act and direct the petitioner to have its accounts audited. Mr. Rai is justified in relying upon the judgment in the Takshashila Realities Private Limited (supra) wherein it was held that apart from the nature and complexity of accounts, even in case of multiplicity of transactions, in the accounts or specialised nature business activity of the assessee and the interests of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer can pass an order for special audit in exercise of powers conferred under Section 142(2A) of the Act”, the Court concluded.

Case Title: M/S Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar

Click here to read more

10. [Misuse of Perjury pleas] The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the increasing misuse of perjury proceedings, observing that applications under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are often being filed as a tactic to “arm-twist” opponents and delay trial proceedings rather than to address genuine cases of false evidence. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against a defendant in a family property dispute. The case arose out of a suit for partition and rendition of accounts among siblings following the death of their father. During the proceedings, the plaintiffs had moved an application under Section 340 CrPC (corresponding to Section 379 of the BNSS) alleging that the defendant made false statements on oath and filed forged documents through affidavits concerning disclosure of inherited assets. The allegations were based on inconsistencies between the affidavits and other material placed on record. However, the Court found that such contradictions, by themselves, do not meet the legal threshold required to initiate perjury proceedings. It emphasized that Section 340 CrPC is attracted only when the ingredients of offences specified under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC (Section 215 of the BNSS) are clearly made out.

Case Title: Nisha Chandola & Anr. v. Manoj Sharma and Anr.

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad

Click here to read more