Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [December 15-21, 2025]

1. [Indigo Crisis] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking “four times” compensation for passengers affected by recent flight cancellations by IndiGo Airlines and a judicial inquiry against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for alleged regulatory lapses. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to examine the plea, observing that the issues raised were already under consideration in an earlier PIL pending before the court. “We decline to entertain this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek impleadment in the earlier PIL,” the Bench said. While acknowledging the petitioner’s contention that the prayers differed, the Court found no justification for entertaining a separate PIL. “We do not see any reason as to why the concerns raised in this PIL cannot be taken cognisance of in the earlier PIL. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts permits the Court to expand the scope of a petition if the same appears to be in public interest,” the Bench said. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek impleadment in the pending PIL.

Case Title: Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Click here to read more

2. [J&K Deputy CM] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, ordered the removal of allegedly objectionable social media content targeting Jammu and Kashmir Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary. Granting interim relief in a defamation suit filed by Choudhary, Justice Amit Bansal observed that a prima facie case was made out in his favour. The Court noted that the nature of the content required immediate consideration at the interim stage.The videos circulated on social media allegedly show Choudhary in a purported telephonic conversation with a woman and are claimed to contain sexually suggestive elements. Choudhary argued that the material is defamatory and has sought permanent and mandatory injunctions directing its removal.

Case Title: Surinder Kumar Choudhary v. Google LLC & Ors

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

3. [M J Akbar’s Appeal Against Priya Ramani’s Acquittal] The Delhi High Court on December 16, 2025 advanced the hearing in an appeal filed by former Minister of State for External Affairs M J Akbar, challenging a trial court verdict that had acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in a criminal defamation case arising out of allegations made during the #MeToo movement. A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the application moved by Akbar seeking advancement of the hearing, which was earlier scheduled for May 7 next year. The Court has now listed the matter for hearing on March 16, 2026. Before the High Court, Akbar has challenged the trial court order dated February 17, 2021, by which Ramani was acquitted in the criminal defamation case. The High Court had admitted Akbar’s appeal in 2022, after it was filed in 2021

Case Title: M.J. Akbar vs Priya Ramani

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

4. [Hybrid Hearings] The Delhi High Court has permitted members of the Bar as well as parties appearing in person to avail the hybrid mode of appearance through video conferencing for matters listed before the Court, in view of the prevailing air pollution in the national capital. The decision was communicated through a circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court. Referring to the existing conditions, the circular stated, “In view of the prevailing weather conditions, I have been directed to convey that, if convenient, Members of the Bar and Parties-in-Person may avail the hybrid mode of appearance through video conferencing facility in their matters listed before the Hon’ble Courts.”

Date: 15 December 2025

Click here to read more

5. [150 MBBS Seats at HIMSR] The Delhi High Court has directed Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to issue the necessary Consent of Affiliation within seven days, holding that its withdrawal of consent for 150 MBBS seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in New Delhi was unlawful and intended to frustrate an ongoing arbitral process and the admissions cycle. Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that Jamia Hamdard’s decision to withdraw the consent was not backed by any statutory compulsion and amounted to creating an artificial legal hurdle in violation of binding arbitral and Court directions. “For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the withdrawal of CoA by JHDU was not within the confines of law,” the Court said.

Directing immediate compliance, the Court ordered, “JHDU shall comply and issue necessary CoA to the decree holders within seven days of this order, failing which the decree holders will have the liberty to revive the instant application.”

Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors.

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Click here to read more

6. [Maintenance] The Delhi High Court has ruled that stridhant, inherited property or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be treated as her income to deny or reduce her claim for maintenance. Court made it clear that a woman’s right to maintenance must be examined on the basis of her present earning capacity and her ability to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during marriage, and not on the financial strength of her parental family.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by a husband who had challenged the orders of the trial court and the sessions court directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Case Title: X vs Y

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

7. [Government Counsel Empanelment] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 17 December, asked the Central government to frame guidelines for the engagement of government counsel to represent various departments, granting it a period of three months to take a decision and issue appropriate norms. A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order while hearing a plea challenging the recent empanelment of lawyers to represent the Central government before the Delhi High Court and subordinate courts. “As far as framing of guidelines is concerned, we grant a period of three months’ time to the Central Government to take a decision and issue appropriate guidelines for engagement of counsel to represent its departments,” the Court said. The petition was filed by Vishal Sharma, who contended that the empanelment list issued in September 2025 included names of advocates who had not cleared the All India Bar Examination. It was also submitted that the enrolment details of some advocates were missing.

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Hearing Date: 17 December 2025

Click here to read more

8. [Mutual Consent Divorce] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that couples seeking divorce by mutual consent are not mandatorily required to live separately for at least one year under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that the statutory separation period may be waived in appropriate cases by either the High Court or the Family Court, depending on the facts and circumstances. The ruling was issued by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Renu Bhatnagar while answering a reference made by a Division Bench of the Court.The reference sought guidance on the timeline prescribed for the presentation of a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and specifically on whether the statutory periods under Section 13B are mandatory or capable of being relaxed.

Case Title: SK vs SK

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Click here to read more

9. [National Herald Case] The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the recent order passed by the Trial Court, which did not take cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others. The ED has challenged the December 16 order passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne, who observed that while the ED is at liberty to continue further investigation, the Court cannot presently proceed to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint.The Trial Court had noted that the ED's case originates from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the subsequent summoning orders passed by a magistrate, rather than from a registered FIR. In such circumstances, the judge held, cognisance of the chargesheet could not be taken in the manner sought by the prosecution.

Hearing Expected: Next week

Date: 19 December 2025

Click here to read more

10. [Unregulated Second-Hand Vehicle Market] The Delhi High Court has directed the city government to submit a comprehensive report on its failure to regulate used-vehicle dealers. The court linked this regulatory gap to significant national security risks, specifically citing the recent use of an untraced second-hand car in a terror incident near the Red Fort. A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the non-implementation of essential safety rules for vehicle transfers. The High Court expressed grave concern over how vehicles are permitted to change hands multiple times without any official record of ownership transfer. The bench pointed out that an 11-year-old vehicle involved in the November 10 bomb blast near the Red Fort had been resold four times over several months. Despite these transactions, the car remained registered in the name of the original owner, who was then forced to face the legal consequences of an act they were not involved in.

Case Title: Towards Happy Earth Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors.

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

Click here to read more

11. [Right to be Forgotten Case] The Delhi High Court, in its recent Judgment has affirmed that an individual's fundamental right to dignity and reputation, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, can override the media's freedom of speech and expression. In a judgment pronounced on December 18, 2025, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld a trial court's interim order restraining the continued circulation and indexing of news articles regarding a professional banker who had been exonerated in a high-profile money laundering case.The Court emphasised that while the press enjoys constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a), these rights are not absolute and must yield to the right to privacy and dignity when the continued dissemination of content causes "disproportionate harm" to a person who has been cleared of criminal charges.

Case Title: IE Online Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. X & Ors.

Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Click here to read more

12. [IndiGo's plea for Rs. 900 cr IGST refund] The Delhi High Court today issued notice on a plea by InterGlobe Aviation Ltd (IndiGo) seeking to recover nearly ₹900 crore from the Customs department. High Court has sought a response from the Customs Department on a plea challenging the levy of customs duty on aircraft engines and parts re-imported into India after overseas repairs and the subsequent denial of refunds amounting to over ₹900 crore. A Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar passed the order and listed the case for hearing in April 2026. It has also recorded that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Customs Department against the March 2025 judgment is pending consideration. Notably, the Delhi High Court in March had declared unconstitutional the imposition of IGST and cess on the repair component of goods re-imported after overseas maintenance. The court had accordingly struck down portions of a 2021 Customs exemption notification that sought to levy tax on the repair value of such re-imports.

Case Title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (Refund), Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs

Bench: Justices V Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar

Click here to read more

13. [Cash for Query case] The Delhi High Court on Friday, December 19, 2025, allowed Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s petition challenging the Lokpal’s decision granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the cash for query case. High Court has set aside the Lokpal of India's order while holding that it erred in understanding the provisions of the Lokpal Act. Last month, a bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar had reserved judgment after hearing submissions from Moitra’s counsel as well as Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appearing for the CBI. Case Title: Mahua Moitra vs Lokpal of India Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Case Title: Mahua Moitra vs Lokpal of India

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to read more

14. [Credit Card fraud] The Delhi High Court has ordered that costs of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to a credit card holder without whose permission or request a new credit card was issued to him by the Bank, and Rs.76,777/- was debited from credit card towards a rent payment transaction on Paytm without his knowledge. The long and arduous journey that a credit card holder has to undergo, when any fraudulent transactions take place on a credit card, was at the crux of the petition before the High Court."The rejection of complaints filed by the public due to such technical reasons show that the functioning of the Ombudsman of the RBI is not more consumer friendly. Thus, both, the The Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 and the Circular No. RBI/2017-18/15 dated 6th July, 2017 on ‘Customer Protection - Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions' ought to be implemented in its letter & spirit.", a Justice Pratibha M Singh's bench held.

Case Title: SARWAR RAZA OMBUDSMAN vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh

Click here to read more