Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [October 6- 12, 2025]

1. [Journalist Sudhir Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court on Friday has passed an order protecting the personality rights of journalist and Editor-in-Chief of DD News, Sudhir Chaudhary, who had approached the court seeking relief against the circulation of AI-generated deepfake videos portraying him on social media platforms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted an injunction protecting Chaudhary’s name, image, likeness, and voice from misuse.“Injunction granted; we will give it for name, image, likeness and voice of Sudhir Chaudhary,” the Court observed. While outlining a procedural mechanism for the removal of infringing content, the Court said that it would draft the order in a manner that Chaudhary would first write to the originators of the impugned content and mark a copy to the platforms. The originators would then have 48 hours to remove the material infringing on Chaudhary’s personality rights, failing which Google and Meta would be required to take action.

Case Title: Sudhir Chaudhary v. Meta Platforms & Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more.

2. [Maggi Trademark Suit] The Delhi High Court has closed a trademark infringement suit filed by Nestlé S.A., the parent company that manufactures the popular instant noodle brand “Maggi”, after the company reached a settlement with Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt. Ltd., which had been manufacturing pressure cookers under the mark “Maggisun.” Justice Tejas Karia was hearing the lawsuit, originally filed in 2018, in which Nestlé accused the utensil manufacturer of infringing upon its well-known trademark MAGGI. The court was informed that both parties had now arrived at a mutual settlement, following which the suit was decreed in those terms. “The Suit is decreed in terms of the Settlement arrived at between the Parties as recorded above. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly,” the Court said Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant company has acknowledged Nestlé as the proprietor of the trademark MAGGI and accepted the validity of all its trademark registrations.

Case Title: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. & Anr. v. M/s Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

3. [Pakistani Woman’s Plea for Visa ] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition filed by Ruqaiya Obaeed, a Pakistani national, seeking a visa to live in India with her husband, Ubada Abdul Barakat Farooqi, a Delhi resident. Justice Sachin Datta heard the matter today and directed the Centre to file its response. The case will be taken up for further hearing on November 12. Obaeed married Farooqi in November 2024 in Pakistan. Following their marriage, she applied for an Indian visa and travelled to Delhi in April 2025 to join her husband. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Delhi Police, later issued a residential permit in her favour. She subsequently applied online for a Long-Term Visa (LTV), enclosing all mandatory documents.Before her application could be processed, a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, prompted the Union Home Ministry to suspend all visa services for Pakistani nationals. Soon after, Obaeed approached the FRRO seeking time to regularise her stay, but her request was denied. The FRRO then issued an Exit Permit on April 28, directing her to leave the country by May 19 via the Attari–Wagah border.

Case Title: Ruqaiya Obaeed Through Her Husband Ubada Abul Barakat Farooqi vs Union of India & Others

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

4. [Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh’s Plea] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, October 9, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allot a common election symbol to the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) for contesting the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. Established in 1951, the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh traces its origins to the Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee. A Bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the ECI’s earlier notification that had refused to grant a common symbol to the party, citing internal disputes within its ranks.The Court directed the ABJS to submit a fresh application to the ECI for the allotment of a common symbol in accordance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.

Case Title: Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. Election Commission of India

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Click here to read more

5. [Delhi HC Cautions Social Media Users] When speech crosses the line into insult, humiliation or incitement, it collides with the right to dignity, the Delhi High Court has observed while cautioning social media users to exercise restraint online. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution must be exercised within reasonable limits and cannot infringe upon another’s dignity. “Free speech should therefore not trample on dignity and vice versa,” the Court observed.

In its detailed 11-page judgment, Justice Dudeja added a word of caution for social media users. “The internet has made knowledge easily accessible by intensifying its circulation. With this, however, it has also brought a large audience of every age group. Thus, any content on the internet is porous and accessible to a large audience. Every content on the internet must be uploaded with great caution, especially when the uploader has a large audience and exercises influence in society,” the Court said.

Case title: Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

6. [Ajaz Khan Anticipatory Bail] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, October 9, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to actor Ajaz Khan, who had been booked for posting social-media videos in which he allegedly made sexually explicit remarks against the mother and sister of YouTuber Harsh Beniwal. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who presided over the matter, observed that “the arrest should not be mechanical or automatic, especially when no necessity is demonstrated for custodial interrogation.”The Bench noted that the prosecution’s case is based on a video recorded from Khan’s phone, which is already in the custody of the Bombay Police. “In such circumstances, the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not arise, particularly when the relevant documents are no longer within his control,” the Court said. The Court added that no material had been placed on record to suggest Khan was a flight risk. “The apprehension of the State of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of bail, not jail,” Justice Dudeja said, noting that the offences carry a maximum sentence of three years and a fine.

Case Title: Ajaz Khan vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja Order Date: October 9, 2025

Click here to read more

7. [Sunjay Kapur Assets Case] Karisma Kapoor’s children, seeking a share in their late father Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 30,000-crore estate, told the Delhi High Court that Priya Kapur’s conduct was “like that of Cinderella’s stepmother.” Their counsel alleged that Priya Kapur had received the bulk of the inheritance, about 60 per cent of the assets, 12 per cent to her son, and nearly 75 per cent of the family trust. Appearing for Karisma Kapoor’s children, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani told the Court that the will concerning the late industrialist’s estate was a “manifestly forged document,” claiming it was the result of a criminal conspiracy involving Priya Sachdev and others. The submissions were made before a Bench presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing of the plea filed by the Bollywood actor’s children, who are seeking a share in their father’s estate.“Sunjay’s digital footprints are not there; instead, these belong to the conspirators, including Priya Kapur. It is a crime, a serious offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes life imprisonment for forgery of a will,” Jethmalani submitted. Questioning Priya Kapur’s role, he remarked, “If Priya Kapur was confident about the veracity of the will, then why did she want an NDA (non-disclosure agreement)? Look at her conduct.” He added that most ominously, the deceased, Sunjay Kapur, had nothing to do with his own will

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

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

8. [Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, issued summons in a defamation suit filed by Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede against Netflix and others over his alleged defamatory portrayal in the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood”, directed by Aryan Khan. Issuing notice on Wankhede’s interim relief plea, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav listed the matter for October 30. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Wankhede, argued that the territorial jurisdiction lies in Delhi and informed the Court that an application to amend the plaint had been filed. Sethi submitted, “There are posts on various portals. People, with reference to this series, are trolling my wife and sister.” To this, the Court observed, “It cannot be injuncted in general.”Sethi urged the bench to consider the nature of the remarks being made, to which the Court observed, “We accept that there is a cause in your favour, but we have to follow the procedure.” Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Netflix, opposing the suit, while Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan represented Red Chillies Entertainment.

Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.

Click here to read more

9. [Plea To Criminalise Sexual Offences Against Transgender Women] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, issued notice to the Central government on a plea seeking directions to criminalise sexual offences committed against transgender women and to ensure they receive equal protection under criminal law. The plea, filed by Dr Chandresh Jain, seeks that transgender persons be expressly recognised as “victims” under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, so they are covered in cases of sexual offences such as rape, assault and harassment. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter and sought a response from the Union government. The Court has also appointed Senior Advocate N. Hariharan as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the case. In his petition, Dr. Jain, who appeared in person, urged the court to interpret Chapter V of the BNS, which deals with offences against women and children, to also include transgender women and transgender children so that they are afforded the same legal protection.

Case Title: Dr. Chandresh Jain v. Union of India & Ors B

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Plea to Stop Prasar Bharati from calling the BCCI team ‘Team India’] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking to restrain Prasar Bharati, the government’s statutory broadcaster that operates Doordarshan and All India Radio, from portraying the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as the official Indian National Cricket Team. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela termed the plea a “sheer wastage of the court’s time” while rejecting it.The petition, filed by advocate Reepak Kansal, argued that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and not a statutory body or a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 154. Kansal relied on responses from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports under the Right to Information Act to state that the BCCI is neither recognised as a National Sports Federation nor does it receive any financial support from the government. The plea said the cricket board is also not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Case Title: REEPAK KANSAL v. Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

11. [Delhi HC Scraps Bail-Order Remarks That Questioned Woman’s Character] The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because a woman knew the accused or was on cordial terms with him cannot make her responsible for being sexually assaulted. Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman journalist seeking deletion of remarks made by a trial court that had cast doubts on her character while granting bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting her. “Concededly, no person has a right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room,” Justice Mahajan said, adding that the trial court had erred in giving findings on the woman’s conduct at a stage when the investigation was still underway. The judge also noted that “the trauma of the victim ought not to have been trivialised by such observations.” The case stems from an FIR registered at Vasant Kunj North police station under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The accused man was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on January 18, 2025.

Case Title: X vs State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Another & Anr.

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more

12. [Rise in Tech-Driven Frauds] The Delhi High Court has recently flagged the rise in tech crimes where complex technological mechanisms were employed to defraud gullible victims, adding that such crimes are harder to crack due to the boon of technology and its misuse by crooks to evade law enforcement. Justice Amit Mahajan made the observations while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of one Mohit, who was accused of being involved in a digital fraud case that allegedly duped a man of Rs 1.75 crore through impersonation and forged Court documents. “These crimes are on the rise and tend to be significantly harder to crack due to the boon of technology that is effectively misused by crooks to wreak havoc and evade law enforcement. The task of the investigating agency seems arduous,” the Court remarked. The case stems from an FIR registered at the Special Cell on May 13, 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Case Title: Mohit vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more