Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [October 6-12, 2025]
A weekly wrap of key developments from Delhi courts between October 6 to October 12, 2025
1. [Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case] UAPA accused Umar Khalid told a Delhi court that he had been “singled out” by the police in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, while others similarly placed had not been made accused. The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai during arguments opposing the framing of charges against him. Arguing that Khalid had been unfairly targeted, Mr Pais submitted that the prosecution’s case rested largely on the allegation that his client was a member of at least four WhatsApp groups. However, none of the admins of these groups had been charged, he pointed out. The defence also referred to witness statements indicating that certain meetings alleged by the prosecution to be part of the conspiracy were attended not only by Khalid but also by Yogendra Yadav and Nadeem Khan. The senior counsel questioned what the distinction was between Mr. Yadav and others who attended the same meetings and his client, who alone has been booked under the UAPA.
Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai
Click here to read more
2. [Nirmala Sitaraman Defamation Case] A Delhi court has refused to direct Advocate and AAP leader Somnath Bharti to withdraw his vakalatnama from representing his wife Lipika Mitra in a defamation complaint filed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, holding that a spouse is not legally barred from appearing for the other in court proceedings. The order, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal, dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in the case filed under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a summons trial offence. The proposed accused, Nirmala Sitharaman, had moved an application seeking that Bharti be directed to withdraw as counsel, citing Rules 6 and 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It was argued that Bharti, being the complainant’s husband, had a “personal and pecuniary interest” in the case, potentially compromising objectivity. The defence also pointed out that references to Bharti’s own reputation were made in the complaint, which could make him a probable witness.
Case Title: Lipika Mitra v. Nirmala Sitharaman
Bench: ACJM Paras Dalal
Click here to read more
3. [Journalist Sudhir: Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has passed an order protecting the personality rights of journalist and Editor-in-Chief of DD News, Sudhir Chaudhary, who had approached the court seeking relief against the circulation of AI-generated deepfake videos portraying him on social media platforms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted an injunction protecting Chaudhary’s name, image, likeness, and voice from misuse.“Injunction granted; we will give it for name, image, likeness and voice of Sudhir Chaudhary,” the Court observed. While outlining a procedural mechanism for the removal of infringing content, the Court said that it would draft the order in a manner that Chaudhary would first write to the originators of the impugned content and mark a copy to the platforms. The originators would then have 48 hours to remove the material infringing on Chaudhary’s personality rights, failing which Google and Meta would be required to take action.
Case Title: Sudhir Chaudhary v. Meta Platforms & Ors
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Click here to read more
4. [Pakistani Woman’s Plea for Visa] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition filed by Ruqaiya Obaeed, a Pakistani national, seeking a visa to live in India with her husband, Ubada Abdul Barakat Farooqi, a Delhi resident. Justice Sachin Datta heard the matter today and directed the Centre to file its response. The case will be taken up for further hearing on November 12. Obaeed married Farooqi in November 2024 in Pakistan. Following their marriage, she applied for an Indian visa and travelled to Delhi in April 2025 to join her husband. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Delhi Police, later issued a residential permit in her favour. She subsequently applied online for a Long-Term Visa (LTV), enclosing all mandatory documents.Before her application could be processed, a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, prompted the Union Home Ministry to suspend all visa services for Pakistani nationals. Soon after, Obaeed approached the FRRO seeking time to regularise her stay, but her request was denied. The FRRO then issued an Exit Permit on April 28, directing her to leave the country by May 19 via the Attari–Wagah border.
Case Title: Ruqaiya Obaeed Through Her Husband Ubada Abul Barakat Farooqi vs Union of India & Others
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Click here to read more
5. [Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh’s Plea] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, October 9, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allot a common election symbol to the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) for contesting the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. Established in 1951, the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh traces its origins to the Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee. A Bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the ECI’s earlier notification that had refused to grant a common symbol to the party, citing internal disputes within its ranks.The Court directed the ABJS to submit a fresh application to the ECI for the allotment of a common symbol in accordance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
Case Title: Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. Election Commission of India
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Click here to read more
6. [Sameer Wankhede: Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, issued summons in a defamation suit filed by Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede against Netflix and others over his alleged defamatory portrayal in the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood”, directed by Aryan Khan. Issuing notice on Wankhede’s interim relief plea, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav listed the matter for October 30. The suit names multiple defendants, including Red Chillies Entertainment Private Limited, Netflix, X Corp (formerly Twitter), Google LLC, Meta Platforms, RPG Lifestyle Media Private Limited, and a John Doe. Earlier, the High Court had rejected Wankhede’s defamation suit, observing that the plaint in its then form was “not maintainable.” The Court had permitted him to file an amended plaint and directed that the matter be listed again after the amended application was submitted.
Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Click here to read more
7. [Sexual offences against Transgender Woman] The Delhi High Court on has issued notice to the Central government on a plea seeking directions to criminalise sexual offences committed against transgender women and to ensure they receive equal protection under criminal law. The plea, filed by Dr Chandresh Jain, seeks that transgender persons be expressly recognised as “victims” under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, so they are covered in cases of sexual offences such as rape, assault and harassment. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter and sought a response from the Union government. The Court has also appointed Senior Advocate N. Hariharan as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the case. In his petition, Dr. Jain, who appeared in person, urged the court to interpret Chapter V of the BNS, which deals with offences against women and children, to also include transgender women and transgender children so that they are afforded the same legal protection.
Case Title: Dr. Chandresh Jain v. Union of India & Ors
Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Click here to read more
8. [Karishma Kapoor] Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Karisma Kapoor’s children, told the Delhi High Court that the will concerning late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s ₹30,000-crore estate is a “manifestly forged document,” alleging it to be the outcome of a criminal conspiracy involving Priya Sachdev and others. Jethmalani made the submission before a Bench presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing of a plea filed by the Bollywood actor’s children, who are seeking a share in their late father’s estate. “Sunjay’s digital footprints are not there; instead, these belong to the conspirators, including Priya Kapur. It is a crime, a serious offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes life imprisonment for forgery of a will,” Jethmalani submitted. Questioning Priya Kapur’s role, he remarked, “If Priya Kapur was confident about the veracity of the will, then why did she want an NDA (non-disclosure agreement)? Look at her conduct.” He added that most ominously, the deceased, Sunjay Kapur, had nothing to do with his own will.
Case Title: Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Click here and here to read more
9. [Ajaz Khan: Anticipatory Bail] The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to actor Ajaz Khan, who had been booked for posting social-media videos in which he allegedly made sexually explicit remarks against the mother and sister of YouTuber Harsh Beniwal. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who presided over the matter, observed that “the arrest should not be mechanical or automatic, especially when no necessity is demonstrated for custodial interrogation.” The Bench noted that the prosecution’s case is based on a video recorded from Khan’s phone, which is already in the custody of the Bombay Police. “In such circumstances, the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not arise, particularly when the relevant documents are no longer within his control,” the Court said. The Court added that no material had been placed on record to suggest Khan was a flight risk. “The apprehension of the State of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of bail, not jail,” Justice Dudeja said, noting that the offences carry a maximum sentence of three years and a fine.
Case Title: Ajaz Khan vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Click here to read more
10. [Bihar Assembly Polls] The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allot a common election symbol to the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) for contesting the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. Established in 1951, the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh traces its origins to the Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee. A Bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the ECI’s earlier notification that had refused to grant a common symbol to the party, citing internal disputes within its ranks. The Court directed the ABJS to submit a fresh application to the ECI for the allotment of a common symbol in accordance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
Case Title: Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. ECI
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Click here to read more