Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [November 10-16, 2025]

1. [PM Modi's Degree] The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi University to file its objection to the application seeking condonation of delay in the appeals concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree details. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents. The Court allowed objections to the application seeking condonation of delay to be filed and directed that a response to the objection be submitted within two weeks. The matter was listed for hearing on January 16. During the course of proceedings, the Court was told that there had been a delay in filing the appeals challenging the single judge’s August order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi University, said, “I am appearing for the respondents. Instead of issuing a notice, I will put in my reply. Notice is ultimately to call me,” SG Mehta said. In response, the Court observed, “Notice on the delay application.” To this, SG said,“I have not seen the explanation, My Lords. I was not aware there was a delay, and I will address that in my reply as well.”

Case Title: Mohd Irshad v. DU & other connected matters

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

Click here to read more

2. [Shoe-Hurling at CJI BR Gavai] The Delhi High Court has strongly denounced the recent incident in which advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R Gavai inside the Supreme Court. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,“ It has hurt not only members of the Bar but everyone. It is not a question of an individual. Such an incident should not only be deprecated but appropriate measures need to be taken.” The bench was hearing a plea filed by advocate Tejasvi Mohan, who sought directions to the Centre and various authorities to ensure the removal of online content glorifying the act. Mohan had urged the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, as well as social media intermediaries including Google (YouTube), Meta (Instagram), and X Corp (Twitter), to immediately take down defamatory videos and posts celebrating the incident. The plea also called for framing a standard protocol to prevent the spread of such content in the future. It stated that the “continued and large-scale online circulation of videos and posts glorifying or trivialising an act of aggression against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has far-reaching implications for the independence of the judiciary, public confidence in the courts, and the administration of justice across the country.”

Case Title: Tejasvi Mohan v. UOI & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

3. [Engineer Rashid] The Delhi High Court has said it would hold a preliminary hearing on a plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Engineer Rashid) challenging a trial court’s order that required him to pay costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the court would first conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether he should decide the appeal himself or refer it to a larger Bench. The matter reached the single judge after a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Kumar Bhambani delivered a split verdict on Rashid’s challenge to the trial court’s directive. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for Rashid, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra represented the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Both submitted that the judge must decide whether to pronounce a judgment on the appeal or direct that it be reheard by a larger Bench. Justice Dudeja has listed the matter for January 14 for the preliminary hearing. Earlier, on November 7, the Division Bench had delivered a split verdict on Rashid’s plea challenging the trial court’s direction that he bear costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v National Investigative Agency

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

4. [Child Care Leave] The Delhi High Court has held that Child Care Leave (CCL) is a welfare measure meant to support working mothers, and authorities cannot reject it in a mechanical or arbitrary manner. A Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a Delhi government school teacher whose requests for CCL were repeatedly turned down by the school administration. The Court said that while CCL is not an absolute entitlement, the discretion to deny it must be exercised in line with the purpose of the rule. “CCL is not an entitlement as of right, but the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically. It must be guided by the object and spirit of the rule, which is to support the welfare of the child and the legitimate needs of the mother,” the Bench noted. Emphasising the purpose of CCL, the judges added that the leave was introduced to help women balance official duties with parental responsibilities. “Recognizing that working mothers often face practical difficulties in attending to their children’s needs due to official constraints, CCL was designed to afford them flexibility to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require,” the Court said.

Case Title: Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

5. [Jaya Bachchan; Personality Rights] Bollywood actress and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party, Jaya Bachchan, has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights. A bench presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the matter today. Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared on behalf of Bachchan and submitted that the actress’s images were being morphed and circulated online, and that certain entities were commercially exploiting her likeness by selling merchandise without authorisation. During the proceedings, the Court noted that only counsel for Google was present. Justice Arora asked, “No one is appearing for Facebook? Have you served Varun Pathak for Facebook?” The Court then directed Bachchan’s legal team to serve notices to counsels for the Union of India, eBay, and Amazon. The Court also pointed out typographical errors in the plaintiff’s documents and directed the petitioner to re-file the plaint within two days.

Case Title: Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

7. [Yasin Malik Death Penalty] The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has requested the Delhi High Court to hold in-camera proceedings in its plea seeking the death penalty for Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) terrorist Yasin Malik in a terror funding case. Appearing for the agency, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik made the request before a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain. During the hearing, the SPP submitted, “Let it not be in open court; please provide a separate link for Yasin Malik to appear.” Taking note of the submission, the Bench orally observed that it would consider the request. The matter will now be heard on January 28, 2025. The plea was made as the NIA also sought an adjournment to file its response to claims made by Malik in an affidavit submitted to the Delhi High Court in a sealed cover in August. In his affidavit, Malik stated that he had maintained a working relationship with six successive governments since 1990 and that he was encouraged by the state to keep the peace process alive in Jammu and Kashmir. Case Title: NIA v. Yasin Malik

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

8. [ORSL-Labelled Beverages] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant interim relief to JNTL Consumer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which had sought interim relief to clear its existing stock of ORSL-labelled beverages. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that since the case involved misbranding, it could not permit the product to remain in the market, noting that the matter pertained to serious public health concerns. The Court was dealing with JNTL’s plea seeking a stay on the implementation of the three FSSAI orders. The FSSAI, through its orders dated October 14, 15, and 30, had prohibited the use of the term ‘ORS’ in the name of any food or beverage unless the formulation conformed to the World Health Organisation (WHO)-prescribed composition for oral rehydration solutions.

Case Title: JNTL CONSUMER HEALTH INDIA PVT LTD V/s UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Bench: Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

9. [Delhi HC Quashes Arms Act Case] The Delhi High Court has held that the inadvertent presence of a single live cartridge in a traveller’s baggage does not amount to “conscious possession” and therefore cannot trigger criminal liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observations while quashing criminal proceedings against a foreign national who was booked after airport security detected a lone live cartridge in her hand baggage at IGI Airport, New Delhi.The petitioner, a senior managerial professional from the Philippines employed with a Hong Kong–based multinational company, had arrived in India for business meetings and training sessions. During routine screening, security personnel recovered a single S&B 6.35 mm live cartridge from her cabin bag, prompting the registration of an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act.Examining the facts, the Court said, “In the present case, only single live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of petitioner without any corresponding arms. Further, no suspicious circumstances have been pointed out in the FIR which would indicate that the possession of cartridge was conscious.”

Case Title: MA VERONICA GABRIEL vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan

Click here to read more

10. [HC Bars Patanjali from Airing Ad Calling Other Chyawanprash ‘Dhoka’] The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. from airing its advertisement that allegedly referred to all other chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception). A bench presided over by Justice Tejas Karia directed Patanjali to take down or disable the impugned advertisement from all electronic and digital platforms, including national television channels, OTT and streaming platforms, social media, and print media, within 72 hours of receiving the order.The Court passed the order while dealing with a plea filed by Dabur India Ltd., seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against Patanjali for denigration, disparagement, defamation, and unfair competition.

Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more