Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [September 8-14, 2025]

1. [Reputation vs. Free Speech] A Delhi Court has granted interim relief to Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL) in its defamation suit against journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and several others, directing the removal of prima facie defamatory content published on websites and social media platforms. The order was passed by SCJ-cum-RC Anuj Kumar Singh of Rohini Courts in a fresh civil suit filed by AEL alleging that targeted defamatory campaigns by reporters, activists, and certain organizations had severely damaged the Group’s global reputation, hindered its projects, and shaken investor confidence. The Court registered the suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed service through ordinary process, registered post, electronic means including WhatsApp and email, as well as dasti service. The matter has been listed for October 9, 2025. The journalists include: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, along with the websites pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au.

Case Title: Adani Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Ors.

Bench: Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh

Click here to read more

2. [Delhi Lawyers' Strike] The Delhi Police on Monday has directed that all its officers and personnel must physically appear before trial courts in criminal cases for deposition and evidence. The circular, issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stated: "In partial modification of the earlier letter no.9860-72/CP Sectt/PHQ dated 04.09.2025, it is hereby directed that in all criminal trials, all police officers/personnel shall physically appear before the Hon’ble Courts for the purpose of deposition/evidence.” The direction marks a shift from the earlier practice, which allowed flexibility in the mode of appearance, and comes amid strong demands from the bar associations in the capital for ensuring physical presence of investigating officers and witnesses to maintain the integrity of trial proceedings. The Coordination Committee of All District Bar Associations of Delhi had recently reiterated its stand that virtual appearances by police personnel compromised the fairness of trial, stressing that only physical depositions could ensure proper cross-examination and transparency. The new order aligns with these concerns and puts an end to ambiguity regarding the presence of police officers in ongoing and future trials.

Circular by: Commissioner for Police

Circular date: September 8, 2025

Click here to read more

3. [Sonia Gandhi] Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has dismissed a criminal complaint alleging that Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared in the 1980 electoral roll, three years before she officially became an Indian citizen. The complaint, which sought criminal action against Gandhi, claimed that her inclusion in the voters’ list was fraudulent and unlawful since she was not an Indian national at that time. The case was heard by ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia, who pronounced its order at 4 PM today, rejecting the allegations. Notably, on September 10, the Court had reserved its order in the criminal complaint filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi. The complaint sought a thorough investigation into the purported irregularity, which, if proven, could have legal ramifications under the Representation of the People Act. Tripathi approached the Court under relevant criminal provisions, requesting that authorities initiate an inquiry into the matter.

Case Title: Vikas Tripathi v. Sonia Gandhi

Bench: ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia

Click here and here to read more

4. [False Sexual Harassment Complaint] A Delhi court has awarded ₹10 lakh in damages to a senior Border Security Force official after holding that false allegations of sexual harassment were deliberately levelled against him by a colleague, destroying his unblemished service record of more than three decades and tarnishing his reputation in the workplace and at home. The decision was delivered by District Judge Gunjan Gupta, Saket Courts, in a civil defamation suit. The court found that the allegations were “false, concocted and motivated” and emphasised that false complaints of sexual harassment are as serious as genuine cases because they have the potential to devastate the life and dignity of an innocent person. The plaintiff had approached the court through Bijender Singh, Advocate, who represented and prosecuted in the case pro-bono for the officer, seeking damages of ₹30 lakh, stating that after he pointed out repeated lapses in the defendant’s work, she developed personal animosity and, on the very day of her transfer from his office, filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. Two more complaints followed in February 2016, each with progressively detailed accusations.

Bench: District Judge Gunjan Gupta

Click here to read more

5. [Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Defamation Case] A Delhi Court has held that NDTV journalist and news anchor Gargi Rawat committed defamation by liking a defamatory tweet against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and ordered her to pay Rs.10,000 in damages. The order was passed on September 8 by District Judge Satyabrata Panda of the Patiala House Courts in a suit filed by Iyer-Mitra in 2019. While Iyer-Mitra had sought Rs. 20 lakh in damages, the Court limited the compensation to Rs. 10,000, citing mitigating factors, including the plaintiff’s own history of making controversial remarks on social media. The controversy stemmed from a December 2019 article authored by Iyer-Mitra for The Print titled “In Rana Ayyub, the White West has found its next Arundhati Roy.” Following the publication, journalist Rana Ayyub tweeted that the article was a “hitjob.” In response, Mumbai-based lawyer Dushyant Arora replied to Ayyub’s tweet, claiming that Iyer-Mitra had been accused of rape and “routinely engages in hate speech.” Rawat, who was not the author of the statement, liked Arora’s tweet. Iyer-Mitra argued that this act of endorsement meant the defamatory content was visible on Rawat’s Twitter profile, making it accessible to her followers and others who visited her page. Iyer-Mitra subsequently filed a defamation suit against both Arora and Rawat, seeking an injunction and damages of Rs. 20 lakh.

Case Title: Abhijit Iyer Mitra v. Dushyant Arora & Anr.

Bench: District Judge Satyabrata Panda

Click here to read more

6. [Car stolen from private parking lot] A Delhi Court has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and its contractor Pineview Technology Pvt. Ltd. for allegedly stealing a resident’s car from a private parking space in West Delhi’s Vikas Puri. The order came after the Court found that the car was lifted in violation of the law and High Court directions on the removal of “end-of-life” vehicles. The case was heard by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Rishabh Kapoor at Dwarka Courts, who passed the order on September 1, 2025, while dealing with a complaint filed by Sushil Kumar Gupta. According to the complaint, Gupta’s Honda City car (DL-4CAH-1100) was parked in the designated parking area of Ordnance Apartments, Vikas Puri, on December 18, 2022. When he returned from work, the car was missing. He lodged an e-FIR under Section 379 IPC (theft) at Vikas Puri Police Station. The case was assigned to Head Constable Rajesh Kumar for investigation. Gupta alleged that no effective investigation was carried out, and later he discovered that his car had been taken away by Pineview Technology Pvt. Ltd. on the directions of MCD officials, claiming that the vehicle’s registration had expired. He further alleged collusion between the contractor, the civic body, and the investigating officer, who filed a cancellation report without proper inquiry. The complainant also pointed out that he had moved a civil suit to prevent the scrapping of his car, which is still pending.

Case Title: Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Pineview Technology Private Limited

Bench: JMFC Rishabh Kapoor

Click here to read more

7. [Citizenship Issues Lie Solely with Central Government] A Delhi Court has dismissed a criminal complaint seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the 1980 electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship. The complaint invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging cheating, forgery, and false declaration. The informant relied on a photocopy of an electoral roll extract and news reports to claim that Gandhi was registered as a voter in New Delhi in 1980, despite being granted Indian citizenship only in 1983 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Rejecting the plea, ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia observed that the allegations lacked the fundamental ingredients to constitute the offences of cheating or forgery and were based on “mere bald assertions” without legally sustainable evidence. The Court held that the complaint was an attempt to misuse criminal law by projecting an ordinary dispute as a criminal matter to invoke its jurisdiction. "Such a course, in substance, amounts to a misuse of the process of law by projecting a civil or ordinary dispute in the garb of criminality, solely to create a jurisdiction where none exists," it said. Most significantly, the Court underscored that it had no authority to adjudicate issues relating to citizenship or voter eligibility. “This Court is not empowered to adjudicate upon questions which, by express constitutional and statutory mandate, fall within the exclusive domain of the Central Government in matters relating to citizenship in view of Article 11 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and the Citizenship Act, 1955,” the order stated.

Case Title: Vikas Tripathi v. Sonia Gandhi

Bench: ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia

Click here to read more

8. [False Promise to Marry] A Delhi Court has granted anticipatory bail to one Parth Gupta, accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage, noting serious inconsistencies in the complainant’s marital status and identity documents. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vaibhav Singh of Saket Court passed the order in an Bail Application arising from an FIR registered at Amar Colony Police Station under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that she came into contact with the accused through Facebook in 2021, and the two maintained online friendship for nearly three years before meeting in person in May 2024. Their relationship deepened, and Gupta allegedly proposed marriage despite being told that the complainant was a single mother with a 14-year-old daughter. The complainant claimed that between September 2024 and April 2025, Gupta took her to several places outside Delhi, during which she consented to sexual relations on his repeated assurance of marriage. However, on May 27, 2025, he allegedly refused to marry her, citing differences in community background. She further alleged that Gupta possessed fake identity proof related to her and had threatened to harm her.

Case Title: State v. Parth Gupta

Bench: ASJ Vishal Singh

Click here to read more

9. [WhatsApp Group Posts Can Be Defamatory] A Delhi Court has held that defamatory statements made in a residential society’s WhatsApp group can attract legal consequences, ruling that such online platforms fall within the ambit of “public domain.” The Court awarded Rs. 60,000 in damages to a retired Army officer and his son after finding that a fellow resident’s posts had maligned their reputation, and further directed the defendant to issue an unconditional apology in the same group. Civil Judge Nishant Bangarh of the Dwarka Courts passed the ruling in a civil suit filed by Colonel B. S. Chaudhary (Retd.) and his son Jasbir Chaudhary against one R.N. Yadav, a fellow resident of Shivalik Apartments in Dwarka. The case was rooted in messages Yadav posted in Shivalik Friends Forum, a WhatsApp group comprising society residents. The plaintiffs argued that the posts, which were shared during the 2022 managing committee elections, were intended to malign their reputation. They sought damages of Rs. 1 lakh, a permanent injunction against further defamatory conduct, and a mandatory direction requiring Yadav to tender an apology in the same forum.

Case Title: Col. B. S. Chaudhary (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. R. N. Yadav

Bench: Civil Judge Nishant Bangarh

Click here to read more

10. [POSH Act] The Delhi High Court has held that the POSH Act, 2013 does not entitle an accused to discharge in criminal proceedings under the IPC. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order dated August 28, 2025, dismissed a plea by Asif Hamid Khan, former Additional Resident Commissioner of J&K, who sought quashing of his trial on the strength of a favourable Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report and two police closure reports. The Court clarified that criminal and disciplinary proceedings operate in separate spheres, observing: “Exoneration in the departmental enquiry cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR. The standard of proof required is distinct and the Magistrate is not bound by a police closure report if prima facie material exists.”