Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [February 9-15, 2026]

1. [Janakpuri Biker Death Case] A Delhi court has directed the Delhi Police to file a detailed status report in connection with the death of a 25-year-old motorcyclist who fatally fell into an uncovered 15-foot-deep pit dug by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) in West Delhi’s Janakpuri, even as two contractors facing arrest warrants were granted interim protection. Judicial Magistrate First Class Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka Court, while hearing applications in the FIR registered over the incident, ordered the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer to place on record a comprehensive status report of the investigation. The court specifically sought details on the position and working condition of CCTV cameras in and around the site of the incident. The report is to be filed on February 13 at 2 pm. In an order dated February 10, the magistrate noted that the status report must cover the investigation carried out so far, including the availability and functionality of CCTV footage near the spot where the incident occurred. The directions came as the court examined allegations of lapses in safety measures at the site and delays in reporting the accident.

Case Title: Karan Dhayani v. Delhi Jal Board & Anr

Bench: JMFC Harjot Singh Aujla

Click here to read more

2. [Al Falah Trust; PMLA Case] A Delhi court has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on a plea moved by Al Falah Group chairman Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui seeking the supply of a list of unrelied documents in a money-laundering case registered against him. Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan directed the ED to file its response and listed the matter for hearing on March 27. The court also extended Siddiqui’s judicial custody by a further 14 days. Siddiqui has been in custody since his arrest by the ED. The ED has filed a charge sheet against Siddiqui and the Al Falah Charitable Trust, which controls a university and affiliated educational institutions. The charge sheet was filed on January 16 in connection with allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. During the hearing, Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, appearing for Siddiqui along with Advocate Vishwendra Tomar, pressed the application seeking a list of documents not relied upon by the prosecution. However, he sought time to advance arguments on the consideration of the charge sheet. Special Public Prosecutor Simon Benjamin opposed the application, contending that such a list could not be furnished at the stage of consideration of the charge sheet and would be relevant only at the stage of arguments on charge.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan

Click here to read more

3. [IRCTC Scam] The Rouse Avenue Court has reserved its order on the framing of charges in the LARA Projects money laundering case involving former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi, former Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, and 13 other accused. Special Judge Vishal Gogne reserved the order after hearing detailed submissions from counsel appearing for the accused persons and the Enforcement Directorate. The court indicated that the order on whether charges will be framed is likely to be pronounced on March 3. Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General D P Singh, along with Advocate Manu Mishra, submitted that sufficient material exists on record to proceed against the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The prosecution argued that the alleged proceeds of crime were generated through illegal transactions linked to the LARA Projects LLP and were subsequently laundered through a web of companies and individuals. The money laundering case stems from the IRCTC hotels corruption case originally registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The ED’s charge sheet names Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, LARA Projects LLP, Sarla Gupta, Prem Chand Gupta, Gaurav Gupta, Nath Mal Kakrania, Rahul Yadav, Vijay Tripathi, Devki Nandan Tulshyan, Sujata Hotels, Vinay Kochar, Vijay Kochar, Rajiv Kumar Relan and Abhishek Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Lara Project L.L.P. & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

4. [GST on Adult Diapers] The Delhi High Court has directed the Union government to consider and take a decision within six months on a plea seeking exemption of adult and clinical diapers from the Goods and Services Tax (GST), currently levied at 5 per cent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Ajay Digpaul passed the order while hearing a petition challenging the levy as “arbitrary and discriminatory,” particularly affecting persons with disabilities and other vulnerable sections who depend on adult diapers for basic hygiene and dignity. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan appeared for the petitioner, along with Advocates Rishabh Sharma and Ambica Sood. Trehan argued that adult diapers are not a luxury item but an essential hygiene product for individuals suffering from disabilities, chronic illnesses, old age-related conditions, or mobility impairments. The Senior counsel submitted that there is no intelligible basis to distinguish adult diapers from sanitary napkins, which were exempted from GST in 2018. “There is no real intelligible differentia between the use of a sanitary pad and an adult diaper. If a person requires it, it is something they cannot live without. It is a hygiene product one must have access to. Life is without dignity without it,” Trehan told the court.

Case Title: Swarnalatha J. & Anr. v. Union of India

Bench: Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Ajay Digpaul

Click here to read more

5. [Rajpal Yadav Bail Plea] The Delhi High Court has come down sharply on Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, observing that his incarceration was a direct consequence of repeatedly failing to honour commitments made to the court to pay dues to the complainant. “You have gone to jail because you didn’t honour your own commitment,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked while hearing Yadav’s bail application, which was moved on the ground of a wedding in his family. The Court noted that on at least two dozen occasions, Yadav had made statements before the court assuring that he would clear the outstanding amount, but had failed to follow through each time. Justice Sharma pointed out that both Yadav and his counsel had earlier assured the court that the payment would be made directly to the complainant, whereas the present stand was that the money would now be deposited before the court. “Make up your mind,” Justice Sharma told Yadav’s counsel, indicating the court’s displeasure at the shifting stands taken by the actor’s legal team. Rajpal Yadav is currently lodged in judicial custody following his conviction in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case relates to Yadav’s failure to repay a loan taken from the complainant, despite multiple undertakings given before the trial court and appellate forums. After continued non-compliance with court directions and failure to honour settlement assurances, Yadav was taken into custody to serve his sentence.

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

6. [Tweeting Corruption Allegations is misconduct] The Delhi High Court has set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed on a senior officer of Central Electronics Limited (CEL) over tweets and public allegations of corruption, holding that while the findings of misconduct could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, the punishment imposed was disproportionate and required reconsideration. Justice Sanjeev Narula partly allowed the writ petition filed by Madanjit Kumar, a Senior Manager (Public Relations) at CEL, who had challenged both the disciplinary order dated October 5, 2018 and the appellate order dated November 28, 2018. The appellate authority had modified the original penalty of dismissal to removal from service, while upholding the findings of guilt. Kumar was represented by Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, along with Mr. Rishabh Kumar and Ms. Saloni Mahajan. CEL was represented by Mr. Kunal Sharma, Ms. Swati Yadav and Mr. Bhim Singh. The charges stemmed from tweets and re-tweets made by Kumar alleging corruption and financial irregularities in the organisation. The charge-sheet accused him of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company, attempting to bring outside influence by approaching authorities and the media, including through his spouse, and bypassing prescribed official channels under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976. Kumar contended that he had merely shared information already in the public domain, including observations made in a Comptroller and Auditor General report, and that he had also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court. He argued that tweeting on matters of public concern was protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He further claimed the proceedings were vitiated by bias, as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, against whom allegations had been raised, acted as the disciplinary authority.

Case Title: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Click here to read more

7. [PM Modi Degree Case] The Delhi High Court has pulled up petitioners challenging the non-disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree, as Delhi University asserted that the appeals were filed merely to sensationalise the issue and lacked any legal merit. Appearing for DU, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that there was nothing in the matter and that issuance of notice would only serve to sensationalise an already settled issue. "I am appearing. Notice can be only issued to sensationalize something. There is nothing in the matter. This is only to sensationalise," Mehta told the court. The submissions were made in appeals filed by advocate and RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, Delhi based lawyer Mohd Irshad, and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. The appeals challenge a single judge order dated August 25, 2025, which had set aside a 2016 direction of the Central Information Commission requiring DU to disclose details of Prime Minister Modi's academic records. During Tuesday's hearing, Mehta sought time to file written objections, both on the issue of delay in filing the appeals and on the merits of the case. On November 12, the High Court had flagged that there was a delay in filing the appeals and asked the DU to file its objections on that aspect. Under the Delhi High Court Rules, an appeal against a single judge's order must be filed within 30 days. The present appeals were filed on November 10, beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Case details: Mohd Irshad vs DU & other connected matters

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejash Karia

Click here to read more