Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [September 29-October 5, 2025]
A weekly wrap of key developments from Delhi courts between September 29 and October 5, 2025
1. [2012 Jama Masjid Riot] Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court has on September 24, acquitted 16 men in a 13-year-old case linked to rioting, arson, theft, and obstruction of public servants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. The case stemmed from an FIR registered in 2012 at Jama Masjid police station, alleging that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly that pelted stones, torched a police post near Jagat Cinema, and damaged vehicles in the Urdu Bazar area. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Virender Kumar Kharta, while acquitting all accused on September 24, noted “serious doubts” in the prosecution’s case due to inconsistencies in police testimonies, absence of independent witnesses, and failure to collect CCTV evidence. “In the present case, due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses… non-examination of any independent eyewitness, non-collection of relevant CCTV footage, and the defence taken by the accused persons, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution's story. Two views are possible in this case, and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused,” the Court observed.
Case Title: State Vs. Imran @ Dagda & Ors.
Bench: ASJ Virender Kumar Kharta
Click here to read more
2. [Sexual Harassment Case] A Delhi Court has remanded Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati, also known as Parth Sarthy, to 14-day judicial custody in connection with serious allegations of sexual harassment, molestation of female students, and forgery. The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate Animesh Kumar of Patiala House Court after the accused was produced before the magistrate on the expiry of his police custody. Chaitanyananda was produced before the Court on completion of his 5-days police custody. Delhi Police sought judicial remand citing the gravity of the offences and the need to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. The Court has a response from Delhi Police on three applications moved on behalf of Chaitanyananda seeking supply of seizure memo, signing of case diary and providing Sanyasi food, Sanyasi Garb, medicines and books, etc. On September 28, the order was passed by Duty Magistrate Ravi after the Delhi Police Crime Branch produced the accused following his arrest from Agra on Saturday, i.e. September 27, night.
Bench: Judicial Magistrate Animesh Kumar
Click here to read more
3. [Swami Chaitanyananda] A Delhi court has remanded self-styled godman Chaitanyananda Saraswati, accused of sexually harassing 17 women students, to 14 days’ judicial custody, after the police informed that they had added a fresh charge of threatening witnesses to give false evidence under Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Saraswati, 62, was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Animesh Kumar of Patiala House Court upon completion of his five-day police custody. The Delhi Police told the court that the new provision was invoked after one of the women complainants reported being threatened following the registration of the case. Chaitanyananda, who was arrested from a hotel after evading police for days, underwent a medical examination at Safdarjung Hospital before being brought to court. According to DCP (South-West) Amit Goel, a special team had been tracking him across Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal before finally nabbing him in Agra. Days before his arrest, a former student who first lodged an FIR against him in 2016 came forward with new disclosures. According to media reports, she alleged that her original complaint of molestation and harassment was ignored. She said that had authorities acted on her case nine years ago, many other women might not have suffered.
Bench: Metropolitan Magistrate Animesh Kumar
Click here and here to read more
4. [Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has recently passed a John Doe order protecting the personality rights of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation, after finding that deepfake videos impersonating him were being circulated online. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora restrained several unknown entities from misusing Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s personality and publicity rights. “In view of the above, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable harm will be caused to the plaintiff, if defendant no. 1’s are not restrained to publish/circulate the deepfake contents,” the Court said. The court barred the unknown defendants from directly or indirectly using his name, voice, image, likeness, unique style of speaking, or any other attribute that identifies him, for commercial or personal gain without his consent. It also made clear that this direction would cover all formats and mediums, including but not limited to AI-generated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio, metaverse environments, or any future formats or mediums.
Case Title: Ravi Shankar vs John Doe(s) / Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors.
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Click here to read more
5. [Contempt Action Against Lawyer] While terming the allegations as scandalous and striking at the dignity of the institution, the Delhi High Court has recently initiated contempt proceedings against an advocate who made sweeping allegations of corruption against the judiciary. Justice Amit Sharma observed, “Reckless allegations of corruption in judiciary have been made by him which are contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature. The same tantamount to scandalising and lowering the authority of Court. It further tends to interfere with judicial proceedings and administration of justice.” Court made this observation while hearing a contempt petition filed by Gunjan Kumar and another invoking Section 2(b) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as well as Articles 215 and 226 of the Constitution, seeking punishment for the lawyer for what they termed wilful disobedience of a January 17, 2023 order passed by a Rohini Civil Court in Canara Bank v. Vedant. The Court held that a prima facie case of criminal contempt had been made out under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed that the matter be placed before a Division/Roster Bench on November 19, 2025 for further proceedings, with a direction to the respondent to appear in person.
Case title: Gunjan Kumar & Anr. v. Vedant
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma.
Click here to read more
6. [Trademark Dispute: Crocs vs Croose] The Delhi High Court has granted relief to multinational footwear manufacturer ‘Crocs’, ordering the cancellation of the trademark registration for the mark ‘Croose’ after finding it deceptively similar to ‘Crocs’’ registered mark. The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia while dealing with a plea filed by ‘Crocs’ under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the registration of ‘Croose’ in Class 25, registered in favour of Respondent No. 2. The Court held, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Mark ‘Croose’ is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark ‘CROCS’ and is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and the members of the trade. Therefore, the Impugned Mark is hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which prohibits registration of a Trade Mark that is deceptively similar to a Trade Mark, which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.” Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge ‘Croose’ from the register.
Case title: Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr.
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
Click here to read more