Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [January 12-18, 2026]

1. [Turkman Gate Violence] A Delhi Court has sent three men to 11-day judicial custody for their alleged involvement in the violence that erupted during a demolition drive near Faiz-e-Elahi mosque in the Turkman Gate area earlier this week. The accused: Ubaidullah, Mohammad Naved, and Mohammad Faiz, were produced before Duty Judicial Magistrate Kartik Taparia of the fast-track court, who remanded them to custody till January 21. “In view of the submissions of the Investigating Officer (IO) and considering that the allegations are serious in nature and the investigation is still at an initial stage, the application of the IO is allowed,” the Court observed while passing the order.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Sayesha Chaddha

Click here to read more

2. [UAPA] A Delhi Court has convicted Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) chief Asiya Andrabi and her associates Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen for their involvement in a terror conspiracy and seditious activities aimed at waging war against the Government of India and promoting the secession of Jammu and Kashmir. Special NIA Judge Chander Jit Singh of Karkardooma Court held that the National Investigation Agency had successfully proved that all three accused were active members of the proscribed terrorist organisation Dukhtaran-e-Millat and had worked in tandem to propagate anti-India, secessionist ideology through speeches, public gatherings and social media platforms. The case stemmed from an NIA probe initiated on the directions of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs after intelligence inputs suggested that DeM members were using online platforms and public events to incite hatred, glorify armed militancy and advocate Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan. The agency described Dukhtaran-e-Millat as an all-women separatist outfit with the declared objective of secession from India.

Case Title: National Investigation Agency v. Aasiya Andrabi @ Aasiyeh Andrabi & Ors.

Bench: ASJ Chander Jit Singh

Click here to read more

3. [IRCTC Scam] The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the CBI on a petition by Rabri Devi, wife of RJD chief Lalu Prasad and former Bihar chief minister, challenging the framing of charges against her in the IRCTC scam case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has issued notice on her petition and listed it for hearing on January 19, when similar petition by her husband Lalu Yadav is also listed. Justice Sharma had declined to grant a stay on the trial against Yadav at this stage, noting that such relief could not be considered in the absence of a response from the investigating agency. On October 13, 2025 a Delhi Court framed charges of corruption against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, son Tejashwi Yadav and others in connection with the alleged IRCTC scam case. Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order, observing that sufficient material existed to proceed against the accused. All three leaders pleaded "not guilty" to the charges.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

4. [PM Cares Fund] The Delhi High Court has remarked that the PM Cares Fund, despite being a juristic or government entity, cannot be denied the right to privacy under the Right to Information Act. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia has said that even if the Fund is a State, it does not lose its right merely because it is a public authority. The High Court made these observations while hearing a plea against its single judge bench decision from 2024 wherein it had quashed an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing disclosure of information related to the PM CARES Fund in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application. Also Read - Failure to Act on False Complaints Will Make Police Liable, Says Allahabad High Court The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while allowing the petition filed by the Income Tax authority challenging the CIC's order dated April 27, 2022, stated that the information sought by the RTI applicant should have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act. This section mandates giving notice to a third party, in this case, the PM CARES Fund, before divulging information.

Case Title: Girish Mittal vs. CPIO/Dy Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

5. [Youtuber Bhuwan Bham] The Delhi High Court has refused to immediately protect the personality rights of YouTuber Bhuvan Bam, who had approached court seeking to restrain various entities from commercially using his name, image or voice without consent. A bench of justice Jyoti Singh observed that there could not be any finding on the infringement of personality rights on the first date of hearing. "I am of the view that such a finding on personality on the first date is not called for. No one can render a prima facie finding on personality rights, that is how I see it,” Justice Singh said. Also Read - Failure to Act on False Complaints Will Make Police Liable, Says Allahabad High Court However, the court passed an order directing the takedown of various images being used without his consent. Court was told that the use of Bam's persona, including his name, voice, image and likeness, to sell merchandise without his consent amounted to infringement of his personality and publicity rights, as well as violation of a registered trademark jointly owned by him and his company, BB Vines.

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

6. [Trademark] The Delhi High Court has held that the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark. "There is a widespread use of the Mark ‘TIGER’ for various goods and services across India. Hence, ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark ‘TIGER’ has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark ‘TIGER’ does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same", Justice Tejas Karia has held while refusing a plea seeking an interim injunction restraining infringement of the Mark, ‘TIGER GOLD BRAND', infringement of Copyright, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, unfair competition by directly / indirectly selling, advertising, mentioning, and / or using the Mark ‘TIGER PREMIUM BRAND'. "The Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark are not deceptively similar as the Impugned Mark has to be considered as a whole. The Impugned Mark considered as a whole is wholly dissimilar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, the Impugned Markis visually different to the Plaintiff’s Mark, even the ‘TIGER’ device in the rival Marks are different. The colour scheme of the Impugned Mark is also different from the colour scheme of the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark. Accordingly, considering the Impugned Mark as a whole there is no deceptive similarity between the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark. As ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are found to be generic and common to the trade, the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the part of the Impugned Mark containing the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as a part of them", the bench held.

Case Title: Mayank Jain v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt Ltd and Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

7. [DHCBA] The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) felicitated Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, on his appointment as the country's top most judge. The felicitation function was organised by the lawyers' body in the lobby of Main Court Building of the High Court. CJI Kant during his felicitation said that the bar and bench must act as co-participants in the justice delivery system. "The Bar must extend beyond the articulation of grievances to proactive engagement. It is here that I call upon the members of the Bar to engage wholeheartedly in the administration side of justice by offering practical suggestions, volunteering new systems and participating in consultative processes to ensure that reforms are not only well-intended, but are workable also," CJI Kant said. CJI also praised the DHCBA for its collaborative ethos and commended its contribution to the growth of arbitration and mediation. During the event, DHCBA president and Senior Advocate N Hariharan raised institutional concern over inadequate physical infrastructure and “diminishing elevation” of lawyers from the Delhi High Court as judges. “Despite 47,000 advocates, only three have been elevated as judges since August 2024,” Senior Advocate Hariharan said. Also Read - Can a Writ Petition Be Filed Against a Judgment? Apex Court Says No, Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost On November 24, 2025 Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India in a ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Chief Justices and senior judges from Bhutan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, and Sri Lanka attended the event. On October 30, the President of India had appointed Justice Surya Kant, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chief Justice of India with effect from 24th November, 2025

Click here to read more