Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [February 23-March 1, 2026]

1. [AI Summit Protest; Udai Bhanu Chib] The Patiala House Court has remanded Indian Youth Congress (IYC) National President Uday Bhanu Chib to judicial custody, even as he had been granted bail earlier in the day. The court directed verification of the surety bond furnished on Chib’s behalf and sought a report by tomorrow. Pending verification, the court ordered that he be remanded to judicial custody. Chib was arrested by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in connection with the February 20 protest at Bharat Mandapam during the AI Impact Summit in the national capital. The demonstration, described by police as a “shirtless protest,” led to the arrest of eight individuals, including the IYC chief. Earlier in the day, a Duty Magistrate had granted bail to Chib after the prosecution failed to persuade the court on the need for further police custody. However, as part of the bail conditions, the accused was required to furnish a surety bond. During the subsequent proceedings before the Patiala House Court, the judge directed that the surety bond be verified before Chib could be released. The court called for a verification report by tomorrow and, in the interim, remanded him to judicial custody.

Click here, here and here to read more

2. [Shirtless Protest] A Delhi court has remanded three Youth Congress workers to police custody for three days in connection with the recent protest staged during the India AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of Patiala House Court passed the order against the accused: Siddharth, Saurabh and Arbaaz, who were produced before the court following their arrest by Delhi Police from Himachal Pradesh a day earlier. The case arises out of a protest by members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) inside the India AI Impact Summit held on February 20. According to the prosecution, several activists entered the venue, with some removing their shirts to reveal T-shirts carrying slogans critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the India–US trade deal. Slogans were also raised inside the summit premises. Seeking police custody, Delhi Police argued that the accused were aware that their colleagues had already been arrested but were evading arrest. “They were well aware that their colleagues had been arrested. They were hiding. International media was there, international delegates were there,” it was submitted before the Magistrate. The defence counsel opposed the remand, contending that the allegations did not disclose any grave offence. “No hateful speech was made, no police official was assaulted. None of the sections are made out. It is not a heinous offence. No 302 IPC or 376 IPC. It is the political targeting of the opposition,” counsel argued.

Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta

Click here to read more

3. [Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan] The Family Court at the Patiala House Courts Complex in New Delhi has ruled in favour of Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan in a civil suit filed against his estranged wife, issuing clear directions on the enforceability of foreign court orders and ordering return of property related funds. The court held that orders passed by an Australian Family Court in the matrimonial dispute will not be binding on Dhawan in India. It set aside the foreign court’s rulings concerning property settlement and observed that those directions cannot be enforced against him within the country.The court also declared that the financial agreement and related documents signed by Dhawan are null and void. It accepted his contention that the documents were executed under threat, coercion and fraud, and therefore cannot be given legal effect. In a significant financial direction, the court ordered the defendant to return the sale proceeds of properties situated in Australia. The amounts include AU 812,397.50 received as interim property settlement from the Berwick property and AU 82,000 retained from the sale of another property in Clyde North. The court further directed that interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum be paid on these amounts from the date of filing of the suit until full and final payment is made.

Click here to read more

4. [Excise Policy Case, CBI] A Delhi court has discharged former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, holding that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to make out a prima facie case against them. The order was passed by Special Judge Jitender Singh at the Rouse Avenue Courts, who refused to frame charges against any of the 23 accused persons in the matter and discharged them all. In a detailed order, the court criticised the investigation conducted by the CBI, observing that the agency had implicated the accused without sufficient material. The judge noted that the voluminous chargesheet contained several lacunae and was not supported by witness statements or substantive evidence. With respect to Sisodia, the court held that the CBI had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the framing of charges. As regards Kejriwal, the judge observed that he had been implicated without any cogent material on record. The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy, which the CBI had claimed resulted in undue benefits to certain entities. The agency had filed a comprehensive chargesheet naming multiple accused, including political functionaries and other individuals.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Jitender Singh

Click here to read more

5. [Youth Congress Workers Custody] A Delhi court has remanded three Youth Congress workers to police custody for three days in connection with the recent protest staged during the India AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of Patiala House Court passed the order against the accused: Siddharth, Saurabh and Arbaaz, who were produced before the court following their arrest by Delhi Police from Himachal Pradesh a day earlier. The case arises out of a protest by members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) inside the India AI Impact Summit held on February 20. According to the prosecution, several activists entered the venue, with some removing their shirts to reveal T-shirts carrying slogans critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the India–US trade deal. Slogans were also raised inside the summit premises. Seeking police custody, Delhi Police argued that the accused were aware that their colleagues had already been arrested but were evading arrest. “They were well aware that their colleagues had been arrested. They were hiding. International media was there, international delegates were there,” it was submitted before the Magistrate. The defence counsel opposed the remand, contending that the allegations did not disclose any grave offence. “No hateful speech was made, no police official was assaulted. None of the sections are made out. It is not a heinous offence. No 302 IPC or 376 IPC. It is the political targeting of the opposition,” counsel argued. The court, however, allowed the plea for custodial interrogation and remanded the three accused to police custody for three days.

Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta

Click here to read more

6. [IYC Workers Bail] A Delhi court has held that the conduct of four Indian Youth Congress (IYC) workers who staged a shirtless protest inside the high-security venue of the AI Impact Summit “transcended the ambit of legitimate dissent” and amounted to a “blatant assault on public order” that imperilled India’s diplomatic image before foreign stakeholders. Judicial Magistrate Ravi of Patiala House Court passed the order on February 21 while remanding Krishna Hari, Kundan Yadav, Ajay Kumar and Narasimha Yadav to five days’ police custody and rejecting their bail pleas. The four were arrested in connection with a protest at the India AI Impact Summit held at Bharat Mandapam on February 20. According to the prosecution, several IYC activists entered the summit venue, and the accused removed their shirts to reveal T-shirts bearing slogans such as “PM is compromised” and messages criticising the India-US trade deal. They allegedly raised slogans against the Prime Minister and government policies within the summit premises. The Delhi Police accused them of breaching security protocols at the high-profile international event and raising “anti-national” slogans. It further alleged that the accused obstructed public servants in the discharge of their duties and assaulted police personnel, causing injuries. In a strongly worded order, as per reports, the magistrate observed that the accused had orchestrated a “premeditated intrusion” into the high-security precincts of Bharat Mandapam. The court noted that they donned provocative T-shirts, raised incendiary slogans and obstructed officials on duty. “Such conduct palpably transcends the ambit of legitimate dissent, metamorphosing into a blatant assault on public order. It imperils not merely the sanctity of the event but also the Republic’s diplomatic image before foreign stakeholders, rendering it wholly unprotected by constitutional safeguards,” the court, reportedly said.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate Ravi

Click here to read more

7. [Jubin Nautiyal] The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal, restraining multiple artificial intelligence platforms, online intermediaries, e commerce websites and unidentified entities from misusing his name, voice, image and other personality attributes for commercial gain. The Court passed the interim order in a commercial suit filed by Nautiyal seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights against unauthorised AI generated content, voice cloning, deepfakes, chatbots and the sale of infringing merchandise. “In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case and having regard to his well known, popular and well accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff,” ordered Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The Court further observed that failure to grant immediate relief would result in irreparable harm to the singer’s reputation and identity. “The irreparable loss and injury which may occasion may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present,” the order stated. In his plaint, Nautiyal claimed that his personality and publicity rights include his name, voice, vocal style and technique, vocal arrangements and interpretations, mannerism and manner of singing, image, caricature, photographs, likeness and signature.

Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

8. [Air Pollution] The Delhi High Court was informed by the Delhi government that it cannot amend the annual school sports calendar to prohibit outdoor sporting events during the winter months, despite continuing concerns over hazardous air quality in the National Capital Region. The matter arose in a petition titled Nysa Bedi vs Government of Delhi, filed by a group of school students. The petitioners have sought directions to the Department of Education to ensure that outdoor sports tournaments, trials and coaching camps are not scheduled between November and January, when Delhi’s air quality frequently falls into the “severe” and “hazardous” categories. According to the petitioners, holding strenuous sporting activities during such periods compels students to expose themselves to toxic air, thereby jeopardising their health. They argued that this amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to life and the right to education. Appearing for the Delhi government, Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht submitted that the administration must take into account the practical and logistical considerations involved in organising sporting activities for thousands of students across schools. He informed the court that implementing a blanket prohibition on outdoor sports during winter months would not be feasible given the scale of operations and scheduling constraints. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who was presiding over the matter, expressed caution about the extent to which the court could intervene in administrative decision making, particularly in matters involving policy choices such as the preparation of a sports calendar.

Case Title: Nysa Bedi v. Government of Delhi

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

9. [CBSE Appeal] The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), holding that its decision to discontinue the “additional subject” category for private candidates cannot be applied to the 2026 board examinations as the amendment to the Examination Bye-Laws was not communicated in a proper and reasonable manner. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the earlier order of the Single Judge directing the CBSE to permit the concerned students to register for an additional subject for the 2026 examination session. The dispute arose after several students who had cleared their Class XII examinations in 2024 and 2025 sought to appear in an additional subject as private candidates. Under Clause 43(i) of the unamended Examination Bye-Laws, such students were entitled to take an additional subject within two years of passing the board examination. In September 2025, however, the CBSE issued public notices for the 2025-2026 examination cycle without including the additional subject category. Students who had already been preparing for the examination challenged the move before the High Court.

Case Title: Central Board of Secondary Education v. Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya & Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

10. [Homemaker's work] The Delhi High Court has held that the contribution of a homemaker cannot be dismissed as “idleness”, setting aside orders that denied interim maintenance to an estranged wife on the ground that she was well-educated and capable of earning. Deciding three connected revision petitions arising from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that equating non-employment with deliberate dependence reflects a flawed understanding of domestic labour and the economic realities of marriage. The Court upheld the Family Court’s grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 40,000 per month to the minor child, holding that there was no material to show that the wife had any independent income. The dispute arose out of matrimonial proceedings between the parties, who were married in 2012 and lived together until August 2020, when the husband left for Kuwait for employment. To Judicial Custody The wife initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. The Metropolitan Magistrate and the Appellate Court had declined interim maintenance to the wife, primarily on the ground that she was an able-bodied, educated woman who had chosen not to work and had allegedly failed to disclose complete financial details. The High Court found this approach to be legally unsustainable.

Case Title: Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more