Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [September 1-7, 2025]

1. [Delhi Riots 2020] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech” as it dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The Court, in a 133-page verdict, said any conspiratorial violence disguised as protest cannot be protected under free speech and must be checked by the State. It found the role of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid prima facie grave, noting their incendiary speeches aimed at mobilising the Muslim community. Rejecting parity with co-accused, the Bench emphasised that this was not a routine riot case but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” threatening India’s unity and sovereignty. The Court observed, “Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the learned Solicitor General and the learned SPP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a pre-meditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not succeed.”

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam vs State and other connected matters

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur

Click here to read more

2. [Shifa-ur-Rehman’s Bail] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Shifa-ur-Rehman, accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case and President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI). Dismissing his argument that he should be released as the sole breadwinner of his family, the Court held that his misuse of position, handling of funds, and alleged role in the 2020 conspiracy were too grave to ignore. A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was hearing Rehman’s appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying him bail. According to the prosecution, Rehman misused his position as AAJMI president and financed the riots to the tune of Rs 8.90 lakh. Fake bills of expenses were allegedly generated in the name of AAJMI to conceal the real expenditure. These bills were recovered from the AAJMI office on April 28, 2020, at Rehman’s instance, revealing that AAJMI had received around Rs 7–8 lakh in cash. It was further alleged that he collected and distributed money to engage women and children in protests so that police would refrain from using force.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam vs State and other connected matters

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur

Click here to read more

3. [Tasleem Ahmed's Bail] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 2, rejected the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The judgment came from a Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, which noted briefly, “The appeal is dismissed.” Ahmed was first arrested in April 2020 in an unrelated case, before being re-arrested in FIR No. 59/2020, the Delhi Police Special Cell’s “larger conspiracy” case arising from the February 2020 violence. According to investigators, he was accused of mobilising local women at the Jafrabad Metro Station, blocking the road in an event said to have triggered violence in Northeast Delhi. His name, the police claimed, surfaced during the probe as one of the conspirators, based on statements by protected witnesses. The High Court had reserved its verdict on July 9 after hearing Advocate Mehmood Pracha for Ahmed and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad for the Delhi Police.

Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.

Click here to read more

4. [Letter to CJI Opposing Transfer of Judges] 66 women lawyers of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), including several senior advocates, have written to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai protesting the sudden transfer of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju from the Delhi High Court to the Karnataka High Court. The signatories described Justice Ganju, who was elevated after three decades of practice at the Bar, as a judge with an “unblemished record”. They flagged the lack of transparency in transfers that fuels “frenzied rumour mills” and warned that such opacity undermines institutional integrity. The letter urges the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider the move. Separately, a group of 94 Delhi based advocates also wrote to the CJI echoing similar concerns. The DHCBA itself has formally petitioned the CJI and the Collegium, raising alarm over the “alarming frequency” of transfers from the Delhi High Court. The backlash follows the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer Justice Arun Monga to the Rajasthan High Court and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju to the Karnataka High Court. Both judges were appointed to the Delhi High Court earlier this year and are said to have quickly earned the respect of the Bar and litigants alike.The controversy comes even as the Delhi High Court has seen a spate of new appointments, with three judicial officers sworn in as judges on July 24 and six additional judges taking oath on July 21.

Women Lawyers, DHCBA Wrote to CJI

Click here to read more

5. [Virtual Recording of Police Evidence] The Coordination Committee of all District Bar Associations of Delhi on Friday announced an indefinite strike in all district courts of the capital, beginning Monday, September 8, in the wake of a September 4 circular issued by the office of the Delhi Commissioner of Police allowing examination of police witnesses via audio-video electronic means from police stations. On September 2, a delegation of the Coordination Committee and the Bar Council of Delhi had met the Union Home Minister to register their opposition to an August 13 notification issued by the Lt Governor designating police stations as the place to record evidence of police officials.The lawyers’ body said the Home Minister had assured them that a clarification would be issued to ensure examination of police officials does not take place from police stations. However, it said Friday’s circular “is not in line with the final outcome and assurance given.”Thus, the Coordination Committee strongly condemned the circular of the Delhi Police Commissioner, saying it “categorises formal and material witnesses, leaves discretion about appearance to the concerned court, and hands over the entire jurisdiction of physical appearance to the court, which was never discussed in the meeting,” the circular said. “This circular is not only against the concept of free and fair trial but also curtails the right of an accused to defend himself. It is contrary to the assurance given by the Union Home Minister,” the Coordination Committee said.

Circular By: Coordination Committee, All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi Circular

Click here to read more

6. [Online Gaming Bill] The Union government has told the Delhi High Court that it is in the process of notifying the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, and will soon constitute a dedicated regulatory authority with supporting rules under the new law. The assurance came during the hearing of a petition filed by an online carrom game developer challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified before a Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that the government was not opposed to online gaming per se but only to money-based online games, which often lead to addiction and in some tragic cases even suicides among children.The Online Gaming Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, cleared by both Houses within two days through a voice vote, and received Presidential assent on August 22. Now an Act, it imposes a blanket ban on all stake-based online games, whether of skill or chance. It further bars advertising of such games, prohibits banks and intermediaries from processing payments, and classifies offences as cognisable and non-bailable. Violations under the law are punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and fines reaching one crore rupees.

Case Title: Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

7. [Mahua Moitra vs Jai Anant Dehadrai] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, challenging a trial court’s order that restrained him from publicly speaking about the ongoing custody battle with Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra over pet Rottweiler, Henry. A bench of Justice Manoj Jain sought Moitra’s response after hearing Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose, who appeared for Dehadrai. Ghose argued that the trial court’s sweeping “no-publicity” direction amounted to an infringement of his client’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Moitra had approached the trial court earlier this year seeking joint custody of the Rottweiler, claiming ownership arising out of her past friendship with Dehadrai. The latter, however, asserts that he purchased the dog in 2021 and has termed Moitra’s plea as “bizarre.”The trial court order stated, “Both the parties to the suit are directed to ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicized in any form.” Dehadrai’s plea before the High Court contends that the order dated March 6, 2025, is “erroneous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.” He argues that the trial court, without serving him advance notice or affording him a hearing, went ahead and passed the gag order.

Case Title: Jai Anant Dehadrai vs Mahua Moitra Hearing

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Click here to read more

8. [HC Orders GMR to Vacate Pushpanjali Farms] The Delhi High Court has directed G M Rao, chairman of the GMR Group that operates the Delhi International Airport, to vacate his official residence at Pushpanjali Farms in the Capital and hand over the property to its lawful owner Onkar Infotech Pvt Ltd. The ruling came in a detailed 59 page judgment delivered on September 1, 2025 by Justice Subramonium Prasad. The court held that the lease deed relied on by GMR companies was unregistered and therefore unenforceable. As a result, the tenancy was treated as a month to month arrangement which had already been validly terminated.The High Court accordingly decreed possession in favour of Onkar Infotech and directed the defendants including Delhi International Airport Ltd and other GMR Group entities to vacate the farmhouse. With this order the luxurious Pushpanjali Farms residence will now revert to Onkar Infotech which had purchased the property through a registered sale deed in May 2024. The ruling reinforces the principle that unregistered lease deeds cannot be relied upon to extend tenancy rights and that such arrangements will be treated only as month to month tenancies terminable by proper notice.

Case Title: Onkar Infotech v Delhi International Airport Limited

2025 Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad

Click here to read more

9. [HC Seizes Gold, Allows Appeal] The Delhi High Court has refused to order the release of a 100-gram gold bar seized by Customs officials at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Mohammad Afsar Khan, who was returning from Saudi Arabia to Delhi in June 2024. While declining to interfere with the confiscation, the Court gave the petitioner limited relief by allowing him a final opportunity to challenge the order before the appellate authority.A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Anish Dayal observed that since the Customs Department had already passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) confiscating the gold, the proper course for the petitioner was to pursue the appellate remedy under the Customs Act.

Case Title: Mohammad Afsar Khan v. Commissioner of Customs

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Anish Dayal

Click here to read more

10. [Rs 1 Crore Covid Payout] The Delhi High Court has ordered the city government to pay Rs 1 crore in ex gratia compensation within eight weeks to the widow of a municipal school principal who died of Covid-19 while overseeing vaccination work at his school, setting aside an earlier order that had denied her relief. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the ruling on an appeal filed by Girija Devi, wife of the late principal, who had challenged a Single Judge’s November 2024 decision rejecting her claim on the ground that her husband was not on Covid duty in April 2021. Holding that his death was attributable to Covid-19, the court observed: “Having regard to the fact that the letter dated 24.04.2023 clearly specified that the late husband of the appellant was deployed on Covid-19 duties, it is clear that his death, on contracting novel coronavirus, was not only relatable but also attributable to the discharge of such specific duties.”

Case Title: Case Title: Girija Devi v. The State of GNCT of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors

Bench: Chief justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela,

Click here to read more

11. [Law Researchers’ Pay Hike] Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Thursday announced a hike in the stipend of law researchers attached to judges of the Delhi High Court, raising their remuneration from Rs 65,000 to Rs 80,000. She also said that the strength of researchers will be expanded, with each judge now being supported by four researchers. The announcement came during Gupta’s address at a Delhi High Court event that marked the launch of several technology-driven initiatives. The event was attended by Supreme Court Judge Vikram Nath, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Chairperson of the High Court’s Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Committee, and Justice Sanjeev Narula. Among the initiatives launched were the Delhi High Court Mobile App, the e-HRMS portal for judicial officers, the e-Office Pilot Project, digital preservation of judicial records, and the onboarding of the MCD Appellate Tribunal and Juvenile Justice Boards onto the e-Courts platform.

CM's Address at Inauguration of IT Initiatives in the High Court of Delhi

Click here to read more

12. [Scamster Poses As Amit Shah’s Nephew] A dramatic impersonation scandal has unfolded in Delhi courts, where Ajay Kumar Nayyar, accused of posing as Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s nephew to swindle a businessman, has repeatedly been denied bail. The alleged fraud, involving promises of a lucrative government tender, centres on claims that Nayyar introduced himself as “Ajay Shah” and cheated a leather businessman of nearly ₹3.9 crore. Most recently, on September 1, 2025, the Delhi High Court also dismissed his bail plea. Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that the matter was not fit for grant of bail given the “serious nature and breadth of allegations” and the pending addition of more severe charges. The court underlined that the maximum punishment for some of the offences invoked was life imprisonment. The High Court also took note of Nayyar’s criminal antecedents, which further persuaded the bench against granting him relief.

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Nayyar vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Click here to read more