Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [October 13-19, 2025]

1. [IRCTC Scam Case] A Delhi Court has 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. The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the allotment of contracts for the maintenance of two Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) hotels in Ranchi and Puri during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as Union Railway Minister. Following the framing of charges, the court stated that the matter will now proceed to trial. Notably, in July the Court deferred its order till August 5 on whether to frame charges against RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his The Court had reserved its order on May 29 after hearing detailed arguments on charge. "In continuation of the previous bulk listing of the present matter from 28.02.2025 to 07.03.2025; 22.03.2025 to 29.03.2025, 21.04.2025 to 26.04.2025 and from 07.05.2025 to 21.05.2025, the matter is again listed today," the Court had noted on May 29. The Judge had said, "Limited submissions have been addressed by the ld. Sr. Counsel for the CBI in terms of the previous order. The arguments thus stand concluded on the aspect of charge. The accused persons who have not furnished written submissions are at liberty to file a short synopsis of their arguments comprising no more than 6 to 8 pages within one week." "Since extensive arguments have been advanced by the respective counsels for the 14 accused with reference to the voluminuous record and the proceedings have stretched over several months even with day to day hearing in bulk dates, the court shall require suitable time for pronouncing the order on charge. Accordingly, the matter is directed to be listed for orders on charge on 23.07.2025," the Court had said.

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

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

2. [Khalid Saifi] A Delhi Court has granted 10 days of interim bail to United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, who is currently in custody in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots case. The relief was granted to enable him to attend a family wedding and spend time with his ailing mother. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court allowed Saifi’s plea, which had sought 15 days of interim bail on humanitarian grounds, noting that both the marriage and the health condition of his mother warranted temporary release. “Although, as per the prosecution, the bride is not the closest relative of the applicant, it has been verified that she is related to him, and the fact of her marriage stands confirmed,” the court observed. On Saifi’s mother’s condition, the court noted that while no specific medical prescription had been filed, she was around 85 years old and suffering from general ill health. “Thus, keeping in view both the facts, the court finds it justified to grant the desired relief to the applicant, i.e., to attend the marriage and more importantly to be with the old-aged mother,” the order stated. Accordingly, the Court granted interim bail from October 14 to October 23, subject to furnishing a bail bond and personal bond of Rs. 20,000 each. It directed that Saifi must surrender before the concerned jail superintendent on the evening of October 23.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more

3. [Bihar Assembly Election] UAPA Accused Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday withdrew his interim bail application from a Delhi Court, which he had filed seeking temporary relief for two weeks to contest the Bihar Assembly elections. Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Imam, informed Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court that his regular bail application is pending before the Supreme Court and that the proper forum to consider the interim bail plea was the apex court. No further proceedings took place in the Delhi court following the withdrawal. Imam, a native of Kako village in Jehanabad, has been lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail since January 2020, following his arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). His earlier plea for bail was rejected by the Delhi High Court, which held that there was no ground for release at this stage of trial. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai

Click here and here to read more

4. [Sexual Harassment Case] The Patiala House Court has refused to direct the Delhi Police to provide copies of seizure memos to Chaitanyanand Saraswati, who is in judicial custody in a molestation case registered at Vasant Kunj North Police Station. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar declined the plea for seizure memos but allowed Saraswati certain concessions in jail, including wearing his Sanyasi robe, access to medicines, spectacles, books, and food. The plea for religious attire was opposed by Delhi Police, which submitted that Saraswati is not a sanyasi and that allowing him to wear such clothes could create law-and-order issues in jail. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the accused’s religious claim was unverified. Advocate Manish Gandhi, representing Saraswati, countered that his client had undergone Diksha, changing his name from Parthasarathi to Chaitanyanand Saraswati, and that the Mathh had not challenged this. Gandhi further emphasized that the jail manual does not prohibit undertrial prisoners from wearing clothes of their choice, and that denying such rights based on personal beliefs was impermissible.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar

Click here to read more

5. [2020 Delhi Riots] UAPA Accused Umar Khalid’s counsel has told a Delhi Court that the Delhi Police’s “larger conspiracy” case in the 2020 riots matter under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is built entirely on delayed witness statements and not a shred of physical evidence. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, made the submissions before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts while opposing the framing of charges in FIR 59 of 2020, which is being probed by the Delhi Police Special Cell. You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything, and call it a UAPA case. The prosecution’s case is that it doesn’t need evidence, it only needs statements,” Pais submitted. He argued that if the Court were to rely solely on statements recorded months after the riots, the case “will go nowhere” and “should not have proceeded as an FIR even.” He reiterated that there was no recovery, no financial trail, and no allegation of fund procurement against Khalid.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more

6. [OTT Accessibility Rules] The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it will finalise accessibility guidelines for persons with hearing and visual impairments on over-the-top (OTT) platforms within the next three months. Justice Sachin Datta recorded the government’s assurance that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has uploaded the draft guidelines on its official website, inviting comments from the public and stakeholders. Court was hearing a petition filed by visually impaired persons who raised concerns over the lack of accessibility features such as audio descriptions and subtitles for disabled viewers in newly released films on OTT platforms. OTT content refers to audio, video and other media distributed through the internet rather than traditional broadcasting channels. “It is assured by the Ministry’s counsel that the suggestions of the petitioner will be duly taken into account before finalising the guidelines. The Ministry has further undertaken that the finalised norms shall be issued within three months,” the judge recorded while disposing of the petition.

Case Title: Akshat Baldwa & Anr v. Maddock Films Private Limited and Ors

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

7. [INX Media Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday modified a bail condition restricting Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s foreign travel in the INX Media corruption case. Justice Ravinder Dudeja modified the condition that required Karti to seek prior permission from the trial court before leaving the country. Instead, the court said the Congress leader must now give a two-week prior intimation to both the trial court and the investigating agency, along with his complete travel itinerary. The Court also directed Karti to appear regularly before the trial court and not delay proceedings in any manner. Finding merit in Karti’s plea, Justice Dudeja allowed the application. The CBI had opposed any relaxation, citing the example of fugitive businessman and former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Mallya, who fled India while facing criminal proceedings. Karti’s counsel, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, argued that his client, an elected MP, had consistently cooperated with the investigation and was not a flight risk.

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v. CBI

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

8. [Hritik Roshan; Personality Rights] Granting relief to Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the removal of specific posts that infringe upon the actor’s personality rights, including the unauthorized use of his name, image, and likeness. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, however, declined to order the immediate takedown of fan pages, observing that such an action could not be passed ex parte at this stage. It asked the defendants to provide the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the creators of these fan pages to the plaintiff within three weeks, allowing Roshan to implead them as parties so that they may be heard before any further direction is issued. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Roshan, argued that several defendants were using the actor’s name and image without permission for commercial gain. “Bags, T-shirts, and other merchandise are being manufactured using my name,” Sethi submitted. Taking the Court through the alleged infringing content, Sethi said, “Page No. 117 is showing me in poor light; they are carrying my image, an altered image. They are using my image without my consent. The defendants are using my voice… similarly, My Lords, the AI chatbox is talking as if it were the plaintiff.”

Case Title: Hritik Roshan v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

9. [PFI Ban; UAPA Tribunal] The Delhi High Court has held maintainable a petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s decision that had upheld the five-year ban imposed on the organisation by the Central Government. The PFI had approached the High Court assailing the Tribunal’s order dated March 21, 2024, which affirmed the Centre’s notification declaring the organisation an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its verdict today, said, "In view of the aforesaid, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and maintain a petition under Article 226 against an order of the Tribunal passed under Section 4 of the Act." Issuing notice to Centre, the Court added, "We thus hold the instant petition to be maintainable. Issue notice. Counter within six weeks; two weeks for rejoinder."

Case Title: Popular Front of India vs Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Kumar Sanu; Personality Rights] Veteran playback singer Kumar Sanu has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora briefly heard Sanu’s plea today. The singer has sought protection of his name, voice, vocal style, technique, vocal arrangements, interpretations, mannerisms, images, caricatures, photographs, likeness, and signature. In his plea, Sanu has also sought protection against any unauthorised or unlicensed use and commercial exploitation of his persona by third parties, arguing that such actions are likely to cause confusion, deception, and dilution among the public. During the hearing today, the counsel for Kumar Sanu submitted that the plaintiff is a celebrated personality. It was contended that Defendants 1 to 5 have been using AI voice modulation and cloning to imitate Sanu’s voice and style. The counsel added that distorted and morphed videos of the singer are being circulated online. One such video, the Court was told, appears on an Instagram page falsely showing Kumar Sanu singing a song for former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. The defendants were also alleged to have engaged in commercial merchandising and to have circulated false and incorrect personal information about the singer through such content.

Case Title: Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Jammable Limited & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more