Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [November 10-16, 2025]

1. [2020 Delhi Riots; Kapil Mishra] A Delhi Court has struck down an order directing “further investigation” against BJP leader Kapil Mishra in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, describing the magistrate’s approach as “flawed theory-building” and a clear instance of jurisdictional overreach. Holding that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had “travelled beyond his authority” by invoking powers under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) despite the case already being before a Special Court, the Sessions Court said the order was “illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law.” In a detailed order dated November 10, 2025, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh set aside the ACJM’s April 1, 2025 order passed in a complaint by Mohammad Ilyas, calling it “illegal, improper and unsustainable in law.” The Court ruled that the ACJM had no power to order “further investigation” in FIR No. 59/2020, a case already under the cognizance of a Special Court dealing with the larger conspiracy behind the riots. “The Ld. ACJM travelled beyond his authority and dealt with issues already within the domain of the trial court,” the revisional Court observed, adding that once the final report had been filed and cognizance taken, “the Magistrate could not have invoked powers under Section 175(3) BNSS (akin to Section 156(3) CrPC).” The Judge noted that the ACJM’s order was ambiguous and suffered from “conflicting interpretations,” repeatedly using the term “further investigation” without clarifying whether a fresh FIR was being directed.

Case Title: State v. Mohd. Ilyas and Ors. & Kapil Mishra v. State and Anr.

Bench: Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh

Click here and here to read more

2. [Land for Jobs Scam] A Delhi Court has deferred its order on framing charges in the alleged land-for-jobs corruption case involving former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife and former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi, and their children, including Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court said the order will now be pronounced on December 4. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge-sheeted Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Misa Bharti, Tejashwi Yadav, Hema Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav and others, alleging that jobs in the Indian Railways were given in exchange for land parcels transferred to the family during Lalu Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister. The Court had earlier reserved its order on September 11 after hearing extensive arguments from both sides. Appearing for the CBI, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) D.P. Singh contended that sufficient material existed to frame charges against all accused, asserting that the evidence demonstrated a clear quid pro quo involving recruitment in the Railways. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Lalu Prasad Yadav, countered the allegations, calling the case “politically motivated.” He argued that there was no evidence of any land being transferred in exchange for government jobs. “There are registered sale deeds that show land was purchased for monetary consideration,” he submitted, adding that no recruitment rule was violated and no favour was extended by the former minister.

Case Title: CBI v. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

3. [Delhi Red Fort Blast] The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has strongly condemned the “brutal and senseless” act of violence that claimed several lives in Delhi on November 10, 2025, calling it an assault on “peace, humanity, law, and constitutional civility.” In a press release issued on Tuesday (November 11), SCOARA expressed “deep anguish over the tragic loss of innocent lives” and conveyed heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims. “Such acts have no place in a nation built upon sacrifice, democratic institutions, and the rule of law,” the association stated, adding that it “unequivocally condemns this brutal and senseless act of violence in the strongest possible terms.” Signed by Honorary Secretary Nikhil Jain, the statement reaffirmed the association’s faith in India’s sovereignty, democratic values, and constitutional commitment to justice. “Such cowardice shall never shake the spirit of India nor the resilience of its people,” it read. SCOARA also pledged solidarity with the bereaved and injured, praying for “strength, courage, and healing” for those affected. “We stand united as citizens, as officers of the Court, and as patriots committed to protecting and strengthening the rule of law,” the statement concluded.

Press Release by: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association

Press Release date: November 11, 2025

Click here to read more

4. [IRCTC Scam] A Delhi Court has dismissed a plea filed by former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and M/s Lara Projects Pvt Ltd seeking to halt the day-to-day trial in the IRCTC scam case. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court who had earlier framed charges against the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and others for offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and corruption, ruled that the conduct and scheduling of the trial are solely within the court’s prerogative. “The court reserves the right to list matters on a daily basis, in bulk dates or in any other order,” Judge Gogne observed while rejecting the application. The Court had earlier posted the case for prosecution evidence, beginning with the examination of formal witnesses from October 27 to November 7. The cross-examination of witnesses was later deferred to November 17 following a request by some of the accused. Emphasizing judicial control over the trial process, Judge Gogne said, “Listing of a matter in trial on any particular date or order of dates is part of the essential function of a trial court. While the convenience of counsels is always considered, the prerogative of the court cannot be bound by the parties’ requests.” He noted that both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have directed trial courts to expedite proceedings, avoid adjournments, and record evidence on a day-to-day basis once the trial begins.

Case Title: CBI Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

5. [MF Hussain Painting] A Delhi Court has set aside a magistrate’s order dismissing a complaint filed by art collector Rohit Singh Mahiyaria against former Union Minister and ex-MP Bhanwar Jitendra Singh, in connection with the alleged misappropriation of a valuable painting by the late artist M.F. Husain. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court held that the materials on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the former parliamentarian for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The revision petition, filed under Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by complainant Mahiyaria, challenged the order dated March 21, 2025, by the ACJM, which had dismissed his complaint at the pre-summoning stage. The complaint alleged that Singh had borrowed a painting by M.F. Husain in April 2014 and failed to return it despite repeated requests. According to the complainant, his mother, Dr. Prabha Thakur; a former Member of Parliament, had purchased the Husain painting, depicting Lord Ganesha, for ₹22.5 lakh from a Mumbai gallery in 2013 and later gifted it to him. In April 2014, Singh allegedly visited Dr. Thakur’s government residence in Delhi and requested to borrow the painting to show it to his wife, who admired Husain’s work and was considering purchasing it.

Case Title: Sh. Rohit Singh Mahiyaria v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Special Judge Jitendra Singh

Click here to read more

6. [Sexual Harassment Case] A Delhi Court has sought a detailed status report from Tihar Jail authorities after Chaitanyananda Saraswati, the self-styled godman accused of sexually harassing 16 women students at a private management institute in southwest Delhi, claimed that his life was under threat inside the prison. Chaitanyananda, the former chairman of the institute where the alleged offences took place, was produced before Judicial Magistrate Animesh Kumar of Patiala House Court on completion of his 14-day judicial custody. Before the Court, he alleged that prison officials had denied him permission to wear his monk’s robes despite multiple applications, and had also refused to provide the restricted diet he said monks are entitled to. Taking note of the submissions, the Court directed Tihar authorities to file a detailed status report and listed the matter for November 18. Earlier, on November 7, Chaitanyananda withdrew his bail plea before the sessions court. His counsel informed Additional Sessions Judge Deepti Devesh that the application was being withdrawn as the defence intended to reassess the nature of the allegations once the chargesheet was filed. His earlier plea had claimed that complaints were “tutored,” asserting that the accusations arose because he enforced strict discipline in the institute.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar

Click here to read more

7. [Yasin Malik Death Penalty] The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has requested the Delhi High Court to hold in-camera proceedings in its plea seeking the death penalty for Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) terrorist Yasin Malik in a terror funding case. Appearing for the agency, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik made the request before a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain. During the hearing, the SPP submitted, “Let it not be in open court; please provide a separate link for Yasin Malik to appear.” Taking note of the submission, the Bench orally observed that it would consider the request. The matter will now be heard on January 28, 2025 The plea was made as the NIA also sought an adjournment to file its response to claims made by Malik in an affidavit submitted to the Delhi High Court in a sealed cover in August. In his affidavit, Malik stated that he had maintained a working relationship with six successive governments since 1990 and that he was encouraged by the state to keep the peace process alive in Jammu and Kashmir.

Case Title: NIA v. Yasin Malik

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

8. [Jaya Bachchan; Personality Rights] Bollywood actress and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party, Jaya Bachchan, has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights. A bench presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the matter today. Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared on behalf of Bachchan and submitted that the actress’s images were being morphed and circulated online, and that certain entities were commercially exploiting her likeness by selling merchandise without authorisation. During the proceedings, the Court noted that only counsel for Google was present. Justice Arora asked, “No one is appearing for Facebook? Have you served Varun Pathak for Facebook?” The Court then directed Bachchan’s legal team to serve notices to counsels for the Union of India, eBay, and Amazon. The Court also pointed out typographical errors in the plaintiff’s documents and directed the petitioner to re-file the plaint within two days.

Case Title: Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

9. [PM Modi's Degree] The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi University to file its objection to the application seeking condonation of delay in the appeals concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree details. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents. The Court allowed objections to the application seeking condonation of delay to be filed and directed that a response to the objection be submitted within two weeks. The matter was listed for hearing on January 16. During the course of proceedings, the Court was told that there had been a delay in filing the appeals challenging the single judge’s August order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi University, said, “I am appearing for the respondents. Instead of issuing a notice, I will put in my reply. Notice is ultimately to call me,” SG Mehta said. In response, the Court observed, “Notice on the delay application.” To this, SG said,“I have not seen the explanation, My Lords. I was not aware there was a delay, and I will address that in my reply as well.”

Case Title: Mohd Irshad v. DU & other connected matters

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here and here to read more

10. [Shoe-Hurling at CJI BR Gavai] The Delhi High Court has strongly denounced the recent incident in which advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R Gavai inside the Supreme Court. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,“ It has hurt not only members of the Bar but everyone. It is not a question of an individual. Such an incident should not only be deprecated but appropriate measures need to be taken.” The bench was hearing a plea filed by advocate Tejasvi Mohan, who sought directions to the Centre and various authorities to ensure the removal of online content glorifying the act. Mohan had urged the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, as well as social media intermediaries including Google (YouTube), Meta (Instagram), and X Corp (Twitter), to immediately take down defamatory videos and posts celebrating the incident. The plea also called for framing a standard protocol to prevent the spread of such content in the future. It stated that the “continued and large-scale online circulation of videos and posts glorifying or trivialising an act of aggression against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has far-reaching implications for the independence of the judiciary, public confidence in the courts, and the administration of justice across the country.”

Case Title: Tejasvi Mohan v. UOI & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

11. [Engineer Rashid] The Delhi High Court has said it would hold a preliminary hearing on a plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Engineer Rashid) challenging a trial court’s order that required him to pay costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the court would first conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether he should decide the appeal himself or refer it to a larger Bench. The matter reached the single judge after a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Kumar Bhambani delivered a split verdict on Rashid’s challenge to the trial court’s directive. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for Rashid, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra represented the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Both submitted that the judge must decide whether to pronounce a judgment on the appeal or direct that it be reheard by a larger Bench. Justice Dudeja has listed the matter for January 14 for the preliminary hearing. Earlier, on November 7, the Division Bench had delivered a split verdict on Rashid’s plea challenging the trial court’s direction that he bear costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v National Investigative Agency

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

12. [Child Care Leave] The Delhi High Court has held that Child Care Leave (CCL) is a welfare measure meant to support working mothers, and authorities cannot reject it in a mechanical or arbitrary manner. A Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a Delhi government school teacher whose requests for CCL were repeatedly turned down by the school administration. The Court said that while CCL is not an absolute entitlement, the discretion to deny it must be exercised in line with the purpose of the rule. “CCL is not an entitlement as of right, but the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically. It must be guided by the object and spirit of the rule, which is to support the welfare of the child and the legitimate needs of the mother,” the Bench noted. Emphasising the purpose of CCL, the judges added that the leave was introduced to help women balance official duties with parental responsibilities. “Recognizing that working mothers often face practical difficulties in attending to their children’s needs due to official constraints, CCL was designed to afford them flexibility to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require,” the Court said.

Case Title: Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more