Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [May 11-May 17, 2026]

1. [Journalist Swati Chaturvedi] In an interim relief for journalist Swati Chaturvedi, a Delhi Court has directed news portal OpIndia to remove two allegedly defamatory articles published against her and restrain itself from publishing any further defamatory content during the pendency of the suit. The order was passed by District Judge Meenu Kaushik of Patiala House Court in a defamation suit filed by Chaturvedi against OpIndia and its representatives over two articles published in 2018 and 2019. The journalist argued that the articles falsely portrayed her as being associated with a “leftist propaganda website” and made several damaging allegations, including branding her “delusional,” accusing her of plagiarism and linking her to “extortion rackets.” According to the plea, the publications severely harmed her professional reputation and credibility as a journalist and public commentator. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the articles were protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech and were based on material already available in the public domain. They contended that the reports amounted to fair comment and journalistic opinion, not defamation. OpIndia further argued that describing Chaturvedi as being associated with 'The Wire' could not be defamatory, especially when she herself had written for the platform. However, after examining the material placed on record, the Court observed that several statements made in the impugned articles did not appear to be directly supported by the source material relied upon by the defendants. The Court noted that allegations such as Chaturvedi “running extortion rackets” were not borne out from the documents cited by the defendants in their written statement. While acknowledging the importance of free speech and cautioning against routine injunctions in defamation cases involving the media, the Court held that the balance of convenience presently lay in favour of the plaintiff.

Case Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. M/s Aadhyaasi Media and Sunil Gupta Pvt. Ltd.

Bench: District Judge Meenu Kaushik

Click here to read more

2. [Robert Vadra; Money Laundering] A Delhi court has granted bail to businessman Robert Vadra in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case linked to the controversial Shikohpur land deal in Haryana. Special Judge Sushant Changotra of the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Vadra on furnishing a surety bond of ₹50,000 after he appeared before the court in compliance with summons issued earlier upon cognisance of the ED’s chargesheet. The Court clarified that no additional conditions were being imposed while granting relief. “I am asking to file a bail bond, not any other considerations,” the judge observed during the hearing. The Enforcement Directorate had filed its prosecution complaint without arresting Vadra. Appearing virtually for the agency, ED counsel Zoheb Hossain informed the court that a status report was being filed in compliance with earlier directions. He also sought two weeks’ time to submit another detailed status report, saying further investigation in the matter was still underway. The ED further informed the court that Vadra and other accused persons had challenged the trial court’s order taking cognisance of the chargesheet before the Delhi High Court. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 10.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Robert Vadra & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Sudhant Changotra

Click here to read more

3. [Contempt Case against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leaders] The Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, senior party leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak over what she described as a “coordinated campaign” to vilify and intimidate the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case. Delivering a detailed order in open court, Justice Sharma said the alleged actions of the contemnors crossed the line between fair criticism and a direct attack on the institution of the judiciary. “When the institution is put on trial, it becomes the duty of the judge to ensure that courts are not governed by such allegations,” Justice Sharma observed at the very outset. The judge said the controversy initially appeared to be limited to recusal applications and allegations of apprehension of bias. However, after passing orders in the matter, the Court came across what it described as a widespread social media campaign involving “selective videos,” “incomplete letters,” public boycott announcements and repeated allegations questioning the Court’s integrity and political neutrality. “It was a coordinated social media campaign,” the Court remarked. Justice Sharma repeatedly emphasised that the contempt proceedings were not being initiated due to personal hurt or anger. “These proceedings are not born in a day. The robe that I wear is not so fragile that a few criticisms will affect it,” she said. At several points during the hearing, the judge spoke directly about the pressure judges face when targeted publicly after passing adverse judicial orders. “They wanted to intimidate me. Mujhe darana chahte the. I refuse to be intimidated,” Justice Sharma declared in open court.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

4. [Vilifying material against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma] The Delhi High Court had witnessed a sharp development after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said she would initiate contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory and vilifying content posted against her in connection with the excise policy case. The matter came up during proceedings where the Court was also scheduled to hear the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of all accused in the case, including senior AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, who have been boycotting the proceedings before the bench. As the court assembled, Justice Sharma noted that she was to announce the appointment of amicus curiae in the matter, for which several Senior Advocates had consented. However, she said the situation changed after certain respondents allegedly circulated defamatory material targeting her. “Today I was to announce the amicus curiae. Some seniors had graciously accepted. However, some respondents have posted extremely vilifying and defamatory material against me. I cannot stay silent,” Justice Sharma observed.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

5. [TTFI Secy General] The Delhi High Court has set aside the suspension of Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) Secretary General Kamlesh Mehta, holding that the disciplinary action taken against him violated the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the federation had failed to provide Mehta with prior notice or an opportunity of hearing before declaring him persona non grata and suspending him from office. At the same time, the Court also ordered an independent inquiry into the functioning of the federation, noting serious allegations and deep-rooted governance concerns within the National Sports Federation. The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while hearing a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Mehta challenging the Executive Committee’s order dated January 28, 2026. Through the impugned decision, Mehta had been declared persona non grata and suspended from functioning as Secretary General pending an inquiry by an Enquiry Committee constituted by the federation.

Case Title: Kamlesh Mehta v. Table Tennis Federation of India

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

6. [Right to residence under DV Act] The Delhi High Court has upheld an eviction order passed against a daughter in law and her son from a property owned by her elderly in laws, observing that while a woman may have a statutory right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, such a right does not create any proprietary interest and cannot override the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully and with dignity in their own property. The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while deciding a writ petition filed by Smt. Ritu Taneja and her son Khushaal Taneja challenging an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner directing the petitioners to vacate the property which belonged to the petitioner’s in laws, Mr. Om Prakash Taneja and Mrs. Savitri Taneja. “The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that the assets of the family are traceable to ancestral business and that Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja had a subsisting share, therein, raises disputed questions of fact as well as law, including issues relating to the nature of the property, existence of any coparcenary or joint family arrangement, and the extent of alleged beneficial or proprietary rights. Such questions necessarily require detailed examination of evidence, including documentary proof, accounts, and possibly oral testimony, which cannot be satisfactorily undertaken within the summary framework of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The jurisdiction under the said Act is neither intended nor equipped to adjudicate upon such claims and consequently, such pleas cannot constitute a legally sustainable defence to an eviction order sought for the protection of senior citizens’ right to peaceful residence”, the court observed.The dispute arose following the death of petitioner no.1’s husband, Late Mr. Pankaj Taneja, in February 2020. After his demise, relations between the daughter in law and her elderly in laws deteriorated significantly, leading to multiple disputes within the family.

Case Title: Smt. Ritu Taneja & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

7. [Jantar Mantar Bungalow Sale Deed] The Delhi High Court has raised significant questions regarding the maintainability of a petition filed by the Indian National Congress concerning the sale deed of a bungalow situated near Jantar Mantar in the national capital. While the Court expressed prima facie reservations about entertaining the matter under its writ jurisdiction, it nevertheless issued notice to the Central Government and directed it to place its stand on record before the next date of hearing. The matter came up before the bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in proceedings where the Congress sought judicial directions in relation to the ownership documentation and sale deed connected to the bungalow located in the politically significant Jantar Mantar area of Central Delhi. The locality is known for accommodating several political offices, institutional establishments and government-linked properties, making disputes concerning such premises particularly sensitive and closely watched. During the course of the hearing, the Bench examined the nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioner party and questioned whether the dispute could properly be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the controversy appeared to involve issues connected with property ownership, title documentation and related civil questions, thereby raising doubts about whether the High Court’s writ jurisdiction could be invoked in the present form.

Case Title: Indian National Congress v. Union of India

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

8. [Consensual Romantic Relationship] The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting and blackmailing a woman after observing that the material placed before it prima facie reflected a consensual romantic relationship between the parties. The Court underscored that “morality has to be kept separate from the offence” while considering questions concerning personal liberty, particularly while rejecting the prosecution’s argument that the accused, being a married man with a child, did not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order while allowing the regular bail application filed by accused for offences under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 64(2)(m) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Directing the accused’s release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount, the Court observed that the prosecutrix was an educated 30 year old practising advocate and that the material presently available on record did not prima facie establish a non-consensual relationship. The Court particularly referred to photographs and video clips produced by the defence, which according to it reflected that the parties were happily involved in a romantic relationship.

Case Title: Sabir v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Click here to read more