Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [October 13- 19, 2025]

1. [PFI Ban Challenge] The Delhi High Court on Monday, October 13, held maintainable a petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s decision that had upheld the five-year ban imposed on the organisation by the Central Government. The PFI had approached the High Court assailing the Tribunal’s order dated March 21, 2024, which affirmed the Centre’s notification declaring the organisation an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its verdict, said, "In view of the aforesaid, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and maintain a petition under Article 226 against an order of the Tribunal passed under Section 4 of the Act." Issuing notice to Centre, the Court added, "We thus hold the instant petition to be maintainable. Issue notice. Counter within six weeks; two weeks for rejoinder."On 14 July 2025, Court had reserved its order on the maintainability of a petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s decision upholding the five-year ban on the organisation.

Case Title: Popular Front of India vs Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

2. [Hritik Roshan Personality Rights] Granting relief to Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the removal of specific posts that infringe upon the actor’s personality rights, including the unauthorised use of his name, image, and likeness. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, however, declined to order the immediate takedown of fan pages, observing that such an action could not be passed ex parte at this stage. It asked the defendants to provide the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the creators of these fan pages to the plaintiff within three weeks, allowing Roshan to implead them as parties so that they may be heard before any further direction is issued.During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Roshan, argued that several defendants were using the actor’s name and image without permission for commercial gain. “Bags, T-shirts, and other merchandise are being manufactured using my name,” Sethi submitted.Accordingly, the Court directed that specific URLs listed at pages 118, 119, and 121 of the plaintiff’s documents be taken down, and that the defendants provide the BSI details of the fan page creators within three weeks. The matter will next be heard on March 27, 2026. Before the High Court, Roshan has sought protection of his personality and publicity rights, including his name, voice, image, likeness, and other attributes, alleging that third parties were exploiting these for monetary gain.

Case Title: HRITHIK ROSHAN v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

3. [Gowns Mandatory] The Delhi High Court has directed that all advocates must wear gowns while appearing before its benches starting October 27. “In supersession of this Court’s Notice No. 543/G-11/Genl.-II/DHC/2025 dated February 20, 2025, it is notified that the advocates appearing before this Court are required to wear gowns with effect from October 27, 2025 (Monday), till further orders,” a notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court stated.The notice has also been forwarded to the Joint Registrar (Listing) with a request to publish the notification on the first page of the daily cause list for three consecutive days immediately. The direction applies to all practising advocates, and will take effect from October 27, 2025.

Notice Date: 10 October 2025

Issued by: Registrar General of the Delhi High Court

Click here to read more

4. [OTT Accessibility Rules] The Centre on Thursday informed the Delhi High Court that it will finalise accessibility guidelines for persons with hearing and visual impairments on over-the-top (OTT) platforms within the next three months. Justice Sachin Datta recorded the government’s assurance that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has uploaded the draft guidelines on its official website, inviting comments from the public and stakeholders.Court was hearing a petition filed by visually impaired persons who raised concerns over the lack of accessibility features such as audio descriptions and subtitles for disabled viewers in newly released films on OTT platforms. OTT content refers to audio, video and other media distributed through the internet rather than traditional broadcasting channels. “It is assured by the Ministry’s counsel that the suggestions of the petitioner will be duly taken into account before finalising the guidelines. The Ministry has further undertaken that the finalised norms shall be issued within three months,” the judge recorded while disposing of the petition.

Case Title: Akshat Baldwa & Anr v. Maddock Films Private Limited and Ors

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

5. [Transfer of Judges] The Central Government, on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, notified the transfer of Delhi High Court judges Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju and Justice Arun Monga to the Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts, respectively. Notably, Justice Arun Monga was elevated to the Delhi High Court on July 21, 2025, while Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju was appointed to the bench on May 18, 2022. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended their transfers in August, proposing that Justice Monga be shifted to the Rajasthan High Court and Justice Ganju to the Karnataka High Court.On August 28, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa wrote to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, urging reconsideration of the proposed transfers of the Delhi High Court judges. Subsequently, on September 1, a group of women lawyers from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) also wrote to the CJI, expressing concern and protesting the sudden transfer of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju from the Delhi High Court.

Date: 14 October 2025

Notification By: Central Government

Click here to read more

6. [Kumar Sanu Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, said it would pass an order protecting the personality rights of Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora briefly heard Sanu’s plea. The singer sought protection of his name, voice, vocal style, technique, vocal arrangements, interpretations, mannerisms, images, caricatures, photographs, likeness, and signature. In his plea, Sanu also sought protection against any unauthorised or unlicensed use and commercial exploitation of his persona by third parties, arguing that such actions were likely to cause confusion, deception, and dilution among the public.The suit, filed through advocates Shikha Sachdeva and Sana Raees Khan, also alleged violation of Sanu’s moral rights in his performances, as protected under the Copyright Ac

Case Title: Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Jammable Limited & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

7. [Vulgar Messages by a Married Uniformed Officer] The Delhi High Court has held that a member of a uniformed force who is already married has no business to indulge in a relationship with another woman and send vulgar messages, observing that such conduct is “definitely unbecoming of an officer of a Uniform Force.” In a detailed 18-page judgment, a Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed the plea of CISF Sub-Inspector (Executive), who had challenged a disciplinary order reducing his pay by one stage and a subsequent revisional order upholding that punishment.The disciplinary action stemmed from a complaint by a lady Sub-Inspector posted in the same CISF unit, alleging that Hussain had sexually harassed her by sending vulgar WhatsApp messages such as “darling” and “I love you,” and making inappropriate phone calls. She also alleged that he had once entered her house “with malafide intentions.”

Case Title: Khaja Hussain vs Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & Ors

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Click here to read more

8. [Sunjay Kapur Inheritance Battle] Priya Kapur, wife of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that actor Karisma Kapoor’s children cannot challenge her husband’s will on “bogus grounds” such as spelling errors or an incorrect address, asserting that such mistakes do not invalidate a will. Appearing for Priya Kapur, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar made the submission before Justice Jyoti Singh. “I am assuming this to be probate proceedings. After 45 years, I am told there are now four additional grounds to invalidate a will wrong spelling, wrong address, writing testatrix instead of testator, and closeness of witnesses,” Nayar remarked, questioning the basis of the challenge.The petition was filed by actor Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan Raj Kapoor, challenging the will of late businessman Sunjay Kapur, reportedly worth around Rs 30,000 crore. Nayar argued that the only valid grounds to contest a will, under probate law, are lack of sound mind, coercion, or incapacity to execute the document. He added that the plaintiffs’ suit was “bereft of cause of action”, as there was no direct challenge to the will itself and no dispute over Sunjay Kapur’s signature.

Case Title: Ms Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

9. [INX Media Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday modified a bail condition restricting Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s foreign travel in the INX Media corruption case. Justice Ravinder Dudeja modified the condition that required Karti to seek prior permission from the trial court before leaving the country. Instead, the court said the Congress leader must now give a two-week prior intimation to both the trial court and the investigating agency, along with his complete travel itinerary.The Court also directed Karti to appear regularly before the trial court and not delay proceedings in any manner. Finding merit in Karti’s plea, Justice Dudeja allowed the application. The CBI had opposed any relaxation, citing the example of fugitive businessman and former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Mallya, who fled India while facing criminal proceedings. Karti’s counsel, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, argued that his client, an elected MP, had consistently cooperated with the investigation and was not a flight risk.

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v. CBI

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

10. [The Spy Catchers] The Delhi High Court recently observed orally that personnel of the Indian Air Force (IAF), including retired officers, are restricted from divulging classified and operational information in the public domain. Justice Sachin Datta made this observation while hearing a plea by Group Captain (Retd.) Alok Chandra Mishra, a former IAF officer who authored a book titled “The Spy Catchers.” The IAF had earlier denied security clearance for the book, citing that it contained sensitive material relating to operational and classified aspects of the force.The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court challenging the denial of clearance. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was agreeable to act in accordance with the observations and recommendations made by the IAF, following discussions held pursuant to an earlier order of the court dated May 1, 2023. The respondents were represented by SPC Shoumendu Mukherji.

https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/retired-iaf-officer-barred-from-divulging-classified-information-in-book-the-spy-catchers-delhi-hc-1534682

Case Title: GROUP CAPTAIN (RETD) ALOK CHANDRA MISHRA vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more