Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [November 3-9, 2025]

1. [Low Attendance No Bar to Law Exams] The Delhi High Court on Monday, 3 November 2025, held that no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from pursuing academics or career progression on the ground of shortage of attendance. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, in a detailed 122-page judgment, observed that “attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone the death of a student.” “Bearing all the above factors in mind, there is a need to have a re-look and modify the manner in which mandatory physical attendance is to be perceived and how attendance norms need to be adapted with the changing times,” the Court said. The judgment was passed while disposing of a suo motu PIL initiated after the death of Sushant Rohilla, a BA LL.B. student of Amity Law School, who died by suicide in 2016 after being barred from appearing in semester examinations due to attendance shortage.

Case Title: Courts On Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide Committed By Sushant Rohilla, Law Student Of I.P. University

Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma

Click here to read more

2. [Legal Aid to Celina Jaitly’s Brother Detained in UAE] The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to immediately provide legal assistance to Major (Retd.) Vikrant Kumar Jaitly, brother of actor Celina Jaitly, who has allegedly been detained in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for over a year in connection with a national security case. A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta, which heard the case on Monday, instructed the Centre to take urgent steps to ensure adequate legal support for Major Jaitly and to facilitate communication between him, his wife, and his sister. The court also directed the government to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate with the UAE authorities.In her plea, Celina Jaitly sought the court’s intervention for legal, medical, and diplomatic assistance for her brother, alleging that he was “illegally abducted and detained” on September 6 last year. She said he had been living in the UAE since 2016 and was employed with the MATITI Group, a firm involved in trading, consultancy, and risk management. Jaitly was represented by advocates Raghav Kacker, Ribhav Pande and Madhav Aggarwal, who argued that despite repeated representations, the family has not been able to speak to him even once, and he has been denied a single verified phone call for over a year.

Case Title: Celina Jaitly v. Union Of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

3. [Delhi HC Urges LG to Clear Local Commissioner Rules] The Delhi High Court has expressed hope that the Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena would take up the matter of approving the rules for the appointment of Local Commissioners and Receivers in district courts and grant approval at the earliest. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued this direction while hearing submissions from both parties in a writ petition filed by Advocate Rajiv Khosla. During the proceedings, counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court informed the bench that the rules governing the appointment of Local Commissioners and Receivers for matters before the High Court have already been finalised and officially notified on 02.09.2025. However, she clarified that the corresponding rules for the district courts are still awaiting approval from the Lieutenant Governor. Taking note of the submission, the Court observed, “In the aforesaid view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with the hope that the issue relating to approval of the rules concerning the matters in the District Courts shall be attended to by the learned Lieutenant Governor and requisite approval shall be granted at the earliest.”

Case Title: Rajiv Khosla vs High Court of Delhi

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

4. [Nitish Katara Murder Case] The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Delhi government and the family of Nitish Katara on a plea by Vikas Yadav, who is serving a 25-year sentence without remission for Katara’s 2002 murder, seeking release on furlough. Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to the Delhi government, Tihar Jail authorities and the Katara family and directed them to file their status reports before the next hearing on November 27, 2025. Yadav has challenged the October 29 order of the jail authorities rejecting his request for furlough. He has sought 21 days’ release, stating that he recently got married and wishes to maintain social ties. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Yadav, argued that the rejection was mechanical and without application of mind. He said Yadav meets all conditions under the Delhi Prison Rules and that furlough cannot be denied solely because of the nature of the crime or because he is serving a fixed-term sentence without remission.

Case Title: Vikas Yadav v. The State NCT of Delhi Through Secretary & Ors

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

5. [Arnab Goswami] The Delhi High Court has quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed against journalist Arnab Goswami by lawyer Vikram Singh Chauhan over allegedly defamatory remarks made on a news channel in 2016. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while pronouncing the verdict, set aside both the criminal defamation complaint and the summons issued against Goswami and two former officials of the TV channel, Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra and Samir Jain. “Complaint quashed. Summoning order set aside,” the Court said. A copy of the detailed order is currently awaited. The verdict came on three separate petitions challenging the trial court order by which Goswami had been summoned in the defamation case filed by Chauhan. The case stemmed from a criminal defamation complaint in which Chauhan alleged that Goswami made derogatory remarks about him during the broadcast of The NewsHour on Times Now on February 19, 2016.

Case Title: Arnab Goswami v. State & Ors and other connected matters

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

6. [Engineer Rashid] The Delhi High Court has delivered a split verdict on a plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, challenging a trial court’s order directing him to bear costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament. A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Kumar Bhambani delivered a split verdict on the plea. Justice Bhambani allowed the petition, while Justice Chaudhary dismissed it. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter has been placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Pronouncing the verdict, the Court said: “My brother and I have not been able to concur on the manner in which the application is to be disposed of. Therefore, we will render two separate and divergent judgments, and the matter will be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Let the matter be placed before Chief Justice.....”

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v National Investigative Agency

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Click here to read more

7. [ Journalist Rajat Sharma Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has directed that two YouTube channels be taken down for circulating deepfake videos of journalist Rajat Sharma and violating his personality rights. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on a petition filed by Sharma. He alleged that certain channels were spreading AI-generated content and misinformation using his likeness. The Court recalled that in December last year, another bench had already granted interim protection to Sharma's personality rights and ordered the removal of deepfake and AI-generated videos targeting him. In the fresh order, the Court has asked Google LLC, which operates YouTube, to remove the two identified channels within 36 hours. Google has also been told to share the channels' basic subscriber information, contact details and monetisation data with Sharma within one week. Sharma has also been allowed to approach Google if any other false or manipulated video targeting him appears in the future. In such cases, Google must remove the content within 48 hours of being informed.

Case Title: Rajat Sharma & anr vs Tamara Doc & ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

8. [Former DUSU President Ronak Khatri] The Delhi High Court has asked the city police to promptly act on a protection request made by Ronak Khatri, who served as the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) president last year from the NSUI, and claims to be facing threats to his life and extortion demands. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that it is the State’s responsibility to safeguard the lives of citizens, and the constitutional court must uphold those protections.The Court directed the Deputy Commissioners of Police (Outer North and Special Cell) to process Khatri’s application for security without delay. Khatri approached the Court, stating he received death threats and extortion messages from a Ukraine-based phone number. The sender, allegedly linked to a notorious gangster, allegedly demanded ₹5 crore and warned of dire consequences if the money was not paid.

Case Title: Ronak Khatri Vs State (NCT) Of Delhi

Bench: Justice Ravindra Dudeja

Click here to read more

9. [Blacklisting of Vendor by PSUs is ‘Civil Death’ Of Business] The Delhi High Court has held that blacklisting of vendors by public sector undertakings (PSUs) amounts to a “civil death” of business, carrying debilitating consequences, and cannot be imposed for ordinary breaches or inadvertent mistakes. A bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed that it is a settled principle of law that no entity can be blacklisted unless a specific show-cause notice is issued making it clear that such punitive action is being contemplated. “It is a settled position of law that no order of blacklisting can be passed unless a proper show-cause notice is issued specifically,” the Court said. Justice Datta added that blacklisting is not a routine administrative step but a measure of last resort, as “blacklisting amounts to a civil death, tarnishes reputation and affects future business prospects.” The Court was hearing a petition filed by Aman Carriers, a transportation company that had participated in IOCL’s tender process, challenging Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL)’s orders dated August 20 and 21, 2025, placing it on the “holiday list,” thereby debarring it from participating in contracts with IOCL and Chennai Petroleum Corporation. The company’s PAN was also blocked on IOCL’s e-procurement portal. This action followed the suspension of its account on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) on August 19, 2025.

Case Title: AMAN CARRIERS versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR.

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

10. [Delhi HC Flags Disturbing Trend of Media Reporting] The Delhi High Court has flagged a disturbing trend of media reporting even the most innocuous remarks made by the Court during hearings, which may or may not be connected with the proceedings, merely to create sensation. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that such reporting creates curiosity among the public, who read these remarks with heightened interest without realising that they are not part of the judicial record, do not pertain to the merits of the case, and therefore do not warrant prominence or even reporting. Justice Bansal further noted that media reports have a widespread impact on the general public as well as legal professionals, and hence the media has an absolute responsibility to maintain accuracy and fairness. “It cannot be overstated that media reports have a widespread impact on the general public, which may include some legal professionals. The majority of the public may not be aware of legal nuances and depend solely on media reports to know about events happening in the country and the proceedings taking place in the Court,” the Court said. These observations were made while hearing an application filed in the money laundering case against AgustaWestland scam accused Shravan Gupta, which is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for the accused, moved the application seeking expungement of a remark allegedly made by the Court, as reported by various media houses.

Case Title: Shravan Gupta vs Directorate of Enforcement

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

11. [BJP Leader Ramesh Bidhuri Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld a trial court order refusing to discharge TV Today Network Ltd., owner of Aaj Tak and India Today Group, in a criminal defamation case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ramesh Bidhuri. Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the media house’s plea challenging the trial court's order, which had rejected its application for discharge. The High Court held that in a summons triable case, a Metropolitan Magistrate does not have the power to discharge an accused. The judgment was passed while hearing petitions filed by TV Today Network under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the trial court’s refusal to drop proceedings. The case arises from a news broadcast on August 10, 2011, reporting a gang rape and abduction case involving one Sunny. In the telecast, Sunny was described as the brother-in-law of the nephew of Ramesh Bidhuri, who at the time was an elected MLA from Tughlakabad.Aggrieved by the telecast, Bidhuri filed a criminal complaint alleging that the news item falsely linked him to the accused and implied that political influence was being used to shield Sunny, thereby harming his reputation.Holding the petition to be not maintainable, the Court said, “In light of the settled position of law and judicial precedents, the applications filed by the petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking discharge were not maintainable. The impugned order dated 13.12.2018, dismissing the same, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.”

Case Title: Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matters

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

12. [Taunts or Family Discord Not 498A Cruelty] The Delhi High Court has held that mere taunts, casual references, vague allegations, or general family disputes arising out of day-to-day marital life do not amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the matter, observed that the routine wear and tear of married life cannot be stretched to prosecute relatives of the husband unless specific, substantiated acts of cruelty are alleged. The Court noted a “growing tendency” to indiscriminately name even distant relatives of the husband, uncles, aunts, and extended family members who don’t reside in the matrimonial home, in dowry harassment cases. Such sweeping and mechanical allegations, without concrete evidence, undermine the very intent of Section 498A, the judge cautioned. The provision, introduced in 1983, was meant to protect married women from dowry-related cruelty, not to be used as a tool to implicate uninvolved relatives. These remarks came while quashing an FIR registered at Adarsh Nagar Police Station under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC. The complaint was filed by a woman against her husband, his aunt (massi), and the aunt’s daughter, accusing them of harassment and assault over dowry demands.

Case Title: Shashi Arora & Anr v State through Commissioner of Police & Ors

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more