Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [September 15- 21, 2025]

1. [Karan Johar Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has recently passed an ex parte interim order protecting the personality rights of filmmaker and producer Karan Johar. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that several infringing websites and platforms had unauthorisedly exploited and misappropriated Johar’s voice, name, and image for commercial gain, amounting to a violation of his personality rights. The Court held that such conduct was liable to be injuncted and emphasised that if relief was not granted, it would cause irreparable harm to Johar’s reputation. “In view of the above, the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that if an injunction is not granted in favour of the Plaintiff, irreparable loss and harm would be caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation,” the Court said. Accordingly, the Court restrained multiple defendants, including leading tech platforms, e-commerce sites, and content-sharing portals, from the unauthorised use of Johar’s name, image, voice, and likeness.

Case Title: Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar / John Doe & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

2. [Women Candidates for Army SSC Posts] The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to consider appointing five women candidates as Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officers (Non-Technical) in the Indian Army against posts that were reserved for men but remain unfilled. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was hearing a petition filed by five aspirants who argued that once women are permitted entry into certain branches of the Army, the government cannot restrict their induction by fixing arbitrary caps. The dispute arose from the UPSC notification of August 4, 2021, which invited applications through the Combined Defence Services Examination (II) 2021. The notification announced 169 vacancies for men and 16 for women in the SSC (Non-Technical) category. While all 16 women’s posts were filled, only 107 men were appointed, leaving 62 positions vacant. In its 18-page judgment authored by Justice Hari Shankar, the Bench accepted the petitioners’ plea and directed that they be considered against the 62 unfilled vacancies originally earmarked for men.“There could have been no limitation on the number of women who could be entitled to recruitment against the corps and services identified in para 45 of Arshnoor Kaur,” the court observed. “Needless to say, the petitioners would not be entitled for induction into any other corps or services,” the Court added.

Case Title: Shruti Vyas & Ors versus Union of India through & Anr.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar & Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

3. [HC Cancels Bail in Minor Rape Case] The Delhi High Court has set aside the bail granted to a man accused of sexually abusing, raping, and harassing his 16-year-old daughter for nearly five years, terming the trial court’s order “erroneous and misplaced.” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a plea filed by the minor through her mother, seeking cancellation of the June 16, 2021, bail order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had released the accused father. The FIR was registered under Sections 354, 354A, 377, 323 and 376 of the IPC along with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi. In her 19-page ruling, Justice Krishna described the matter as “an unfortunate case of physical and sexual exploitation of the Petitioner by none other than her own father, since she was about 10 years old, when she attained puberty.” The Court added, “The Petitioner’s young age and vulnerability, combined with her father’s abusive and violent behaviour towards both her and her mother, prevented her from disclosing the ongoing abuse. The persistent atmosphere of fear at home prevented the Petitioner to confide in her mother or seek help from any other person.”

Case Title: D.A. Minor through her Mother and Natural Guardian Mrs. Rupi Babbar versus State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna Judgment

Click here to read more

4. [Newslaundry Challenges AEL Takedown] Digital news platform Newslaundry has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging a directive issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) seeking the removal of content related to Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The matter was listed today before Justice Sachin Datta. However, since the Bench rose before it could be taken up, the hearing did not proceed and was adjourned to Monday, September 22, 2025. Newslaundry has filed a petition before the High Court challenging a communication dated September 16, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB). The communication asked the platform to take appropriate action in compliance with an ex parte gag order passed by the Rohini District Court. The order, dated 6 September, was issued against journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and several others, restraining them from publishing allegedly defamatory content concerning Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) on websites and social media platforms. It was passed by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Courts in a civil suit filed by AEL. The company alleged that a sustained defamatory campaign by journalists, activists, and organisations had damaged its global reputation, disrupted projects, and shaken investor confidence.

Case Title: Newslaundry vs Union of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Data

Click here to read more

5. [Patanjali vs Dabur] Patanjali Ayurved on Friday, September 19, approached the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge order that had restrained it from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash. A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, while hearing the appeal, orally observed that the statements made in Patanjali’s advertisements were an obvious reference to Dabur. The judges cautioned that if it found the appeal to be luxury litigation or a frivolous exercise, it would impose costs on the company.During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for Patanjali, requested time to confer with the opposite side on the issue and revert to the court. The bench allowed the request and posted the matter for further hearing on September 23.In July , 2025, the High Court had issued an interim direction restraining Patanjali Ayurved from continuing with advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash.

Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved v. Dabur India Limited

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

6. [Forcing Husband to Cut Family Ties is Cruelty, Says HC] The Delhi High Court has recently held that a wife’s persistent and pressurising conduct to sever her husband’s bonds with his family amounts to cruelty, and therefore constitutes a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the judgment of the Family Court, which had dissolved her marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The Court upheld the Family Court’s findings, noting that the wife consistently pressured her husband to live separately from his mother and sister and to partition the family property. While the Bench clarified that a mere desire to live separately cannot amount to cruelty, it said, “Persistent and pressurising conduct to sever the Respondent’s bonds with his family certainly is cruelty.”

Case Title: X v. Y

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to read more

7. [CLAT-PG Scores in NHAI Hiring] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, September 18, put on hold the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) decision to recruit lawyers based on Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) Post Graduate scores from 2022 onwards. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela reserved its order on a plea challenging the validity of NHAI’s notification prescribing CLAT PG scores as the sole criterion for recruitment of its legal officers. The Court directed that until judgment is delivered, NHAI shall not proceed further in pursuance of its recruitment advertisement. During the hearing, the Bench questioned the rationale behind the recruitment process and asked, “What is the nexus? You are testing them on credibility, but the purpose of CLAT PG is mainly for LLM admissions.”Last week, NHAI’s counsel informed the Court that the authority would reconsider its decision to base recruitment on CLAT PG scores. The counsel also stated that the deadline for applications had been extended to September 25, while the impugned notification was under review.

Case Title: Shannu Baghel Versus Union of India & ANR

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

8.[Demolition Order of Signature View Apartments] The Delhi High Court has recently upheld a single-judge bench’s order permitting the demolition and reconstruction of the Signature View Apartments in Delhi’s Mukherjee Nagar area. A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while affirming the single-judge ruling, observed that the order was passed after considering multiple expert reports which found the buildings structurally unsafe. The bench noted that the repair works undertaken were merely cosmetic, as the very structure of the apartments was fundamentally weak. Court further held that it could not, “by any stretch of imagination,” be said that there was no relevant material before the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) when it issued the demolition order. The 21-page judgment came on a plea filed by appellant Man Mohan Singh Attri, who had challenged the single-judge order delivered in December last year. The single judge had upheld the order to demolish the Signature View Apartments, noting that the buildings had deteriorated to such an extent that they posed serious risks to residents.

Case Title: Man Mohan Singh Attri v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Click here to read more

9. [Rogue Websites Restrained from Streaming Jolly LLB 3] The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction restraining rogue websites from streaming pirated copies of the upcoming film Jolly LLB 3, starring Akshay Kumar, which is scheduled for theatrical release on September 19, 2025. Justice Tejas Karia passed an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of JioStar India Pvt. Ltd., which had moved the court with a copyright infringement suit against several piracy websites. The company alleged that well-known rogue platforms were engaged in unauthorized hosting and streaming of copyrighted films. Court observed that a prima facie case had been established in favour of JioStar. “Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 31 and 34, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction,” Justice Karia noted. Accordingly, the Court restrained the identified rogue websites from hosting or streaming Jolly LLB 3 and directed domain registrars and internet service providers to block access to the infringing domains within seventy-two hours. It further allowed JioStar to notify authorities of new websites found illegally streaming its content, which could then be blocked in real time without requiring repeated court intervention.

Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. VegaMovies, Yachts & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

10. [DUSU elections] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 17, directed that no victory processions shall be carried out by candidates or their supporters after the results of the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections are announced on September 19, 2025. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “We direct that after the declaration of results, no victory procession shall be taken out by any candidate or supporter.”The Court added that it was not interfering with the conduct of the elections, but warned, “If your reports are not positive, then counting may take place, but we would stop the functioning of office bearers. If it is not satisfactory, if elections are not conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner, we will pass such orders.” The directions came during the hearing of a fresh plea by Advocate Prashant Manchanda, who alleged that authorities had failed to curb violations of Lyngdoh Committee norms and other rules. During the hearing, Manchanda placed before the Court photographs showing alleged violations being carried out by candidates, despite the Court’s September 10 order stating that no violations should take place.

Case Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors

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

Click here to read more

11. [75 per cent attendance mandatory for DUSU] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that students of Delhi University who do not meet the minimum 75% attendance criteria cannot contest the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections. Justice Mini Pushkarna, in her order, stated, “Accordingly, it is evident that a student, who does not meet the criteria of having minimum 75% attendance, cannot be allowed to stand for elections,” while further adding that in case any person does not fulfill the minimum attendance requirement, the College would be within its authority to reject the nomination of the petitioner or any other candidate. The observations came in a plea filed by Muskan, a student of Delhi University, seeking directions to quash the Election Notice dated 11 September 2025, whereby her nomination was excluded from the final list of candidates for the Students’ Union Elections. She also sought directions to allow her to contest the elections.

Case Title: Muskan v. Satyawati College & Ors.

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Click here to read more

12. [BJP’s Sanju Verma vs Congress Leader Shama Mohamed’s] The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application moved by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Sanju Verma seeking rejection of the civil defamation suit filed by Congress spokesperson Dr. Shama Mohamed. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while hearing Verma’s application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The BJP leader had contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that no cause of action had arisen to maintain the suit. Dismissing the application, Justice Kaurav observed that the issues raised by the defendant were matters to be examined during trial and could not form the basis for rejection of the plaint at this preliminary stage. The case was filed by Mohamed alleging that Verma made defamatory remarks against her on August 20, 2024, during a televised debate on Network 18 concerning an incident at RG Kar Hospital in West Bengal. The remarks, according to Mohamed, were then widely circulated on social media platforms run by X Corp (formerly Twitter) and Google, thereby amplifying the damage to her reputation. The judge, however, emphasised that a detailed determination of where the maximum reputational harm occurred or whether it was suffered in the place where the defendant resides is a matter for trial.

Case Title: Dr. Shama Mohamed v. Smt. Sanju Verma & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

13. [Amendment To Disability Act] The Delhi High Court has recently asked the Law Commission of India to consider amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), to ensure that seats reserved for students with benchmark disabilities in higher education, if left vacant, are carried forward to the next academic year or diverted to persons with disabilities.The court said, “In our opinion, a provision providing for carrying forward the seats in higher educational institutions, which cannot be filled in on account of non-availability of persons with benchmark disabilities, to the next academic year and/or a provision for diverting such seats to persons with disabilities will go a long way to fulfil the aims and objects of the RPwD Act.”The verdict came on a plea filed by Jahanvi Nagpal, a NEET-UG 2022 aspirant, who sought a direction to the Union of India and the National Medical Commission to allocate a seat to her against one of the vacancies under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the NEET-UG 2022 cycle, as per the procedure and in terms of the provisions prescribed under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Case Title: Ms Jahanvi Nagpal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

14. [HC Extends Parole to Save Flood-Hit Crops] The Delhi High Court has recently granted a four-week extension of parole to a murder convict in order to enable him to tend to his crops, which have been affected by the recent floods. Justice Arun Monga passed the order while dealing with a plea filed by Praveen Rana, who is serving a life sentence. Rana had approached the court seeking an extension of parole that had been granted to him by a co-ordinate bench on August 18 and was due to expire on Monday.Observing that the situation was an “Act of God,” the judge said, “The petitioner’s continued presence is not only unforeseen, being an act of God (heavy rains), but otherwise also appears to be necessary for sustaining his family’s only source of livelihood, on which his widowed mother and two minor children are entirely dependent.”

Case Title: Praveen Rana v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more

15.[Law on Rights of Viable Foetus] The Delhi High Court has raised a collateral yet recurring issue pertaining to the rights of a foetus once it attains viability, noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, is silent on the subject. The court said that with the increasing number of cases seeking termination beyond the statutory limit, the question of foetal viability has assumed considerable importance in abortion jurisprudence. A bench led by Justice Arun Monga has underscored the need for legislation to clearly define the legal rights of a viable foetus in cases involving late-term pregnancy termination.“It is, however, at this juncture that a larger question arises viz. what is the position in law as regards the rights of a viable foetus which, if delivered, may be born alive? This issue warrants attention. While constitutional courts have, in the absence of legislative clarity, sought to balance competing interests through case-specific adjudication, the absence of a clear statutory framework leaves the matter unsettled,” the court observed.

Case Title: XX v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more

16. [HC Protects Husband from Repeated Summons] The Delhi High Court has allowed a petitioner to join further investigation in a dowry related case through video conferencing, holding that repeated summons requiring his travel from Kolkata to Delhi despite earlier cooperation would amount to harassment and an abuse of the process of law.The Court after considering the submissions of both sides, observed that the petitioner had already complied with prior directions by appearing thrice in person, each time travelling from Kolkata to Delhi. It was held that in the given circumstances, further insistence on his physical presence would be unreasonable.

Case Title: Kushal Agarwal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more

17. [HC: Grandchild Can’t Claim Property] The Delhi High Court has ruled that a grandchild cannot claim rights in a grandparent’s property while the parent is alive. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a civil suit filed by Kritika Jain against her father, Rakesh Jain, in which she sought partition and a declaration of her alleged share in a Janakpuri house that originally belonged to her late grandfather, Pawan Kumar Jain.The Court held that Kritika was not a Class I heir at the time of her grandfather’s death, as her father, Rakesh Jain, survived him. Consequently, she had no independent right in the property. Justice Kaurav further added, “On an appreciation of the provision under Section 8 of the HSA and the aforenoted decisions, it could be concluded that the share of defendant no. 1 in the suit property is his absolute property, and the plaintiff does not have any right in the same. The right asserted by the plaintiff is not recognized by the rules of succession as per Section 8 of the HSA. Having concluded that the plaintiff does not have any right over the suit property…”

Case Title: Kritika Jain vs Rakesh Jain

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

18. [DUSU results] As the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) results were announced, the Delhi High Court on Friday, September 20, issued notices to several candidates, including the newly elected President from Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parisad (ABVP), Aryan Maan, Secretary Kunal Chaudhry, and others, for alleged violations of its earlier order dated September 17, which had prohibited victory processions after the declaration of results.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed its dismay at the conduct of the candidates, stating," It is very very painful. You can imagine the pain. Despite our strict orders, everyone knew that the elections were being monitored. Yet the candidates, even the ones you are defending, have not abided by the rules and regulations.The observations came during the hearing of a fresh plea filed by Advocate Prashant Manchanda, who alleged that the authorities had failed to curb violations of the Lyngdoh Committee norms and other rules. During the hearing, Manchanda placed before the Court photographs showing alleged violations by candidates, despite the Court’s earlier orders. After hearing the submissions, the Court decided to implead the students as parties to the petition. It also directed that AAJ Tak and ETV Bharat Delhi be impleaded as party respondents. This direction came after it was submitted that, despite the Court’s earlier orders, violations had been reported and broadcast by these news channels.

Case Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors

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

Click here to read more

19. [Priya Ramani vs M.J. Akbar] The Delhi High Court, on September 20, 2025, transferred an appeal filed by former Minister of State for External Affairs M. J. Akbar, which challenged a trial court decision that had acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in a defamation case that arose after Ramani accused Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that since Akbar is a former Member of Parliament, the matter should be heard by the designated Bench for former and sitting MPs/MLAs. Accordingly, the appeal has been placed before Justice Ravinder Dudeja and is likely to be heard on October 15. Before the High Court, Akbar has challenged the trial court order dated February 17, 2021, by which Ramani was acquitted in the criminal defamation case. The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal in 2022 after it was filed in 2021.In 2018, Akbar filed a criminal defamation complaint before the trial court against Priya Ramani after she accused him of sexual harassment during a job interview. Akbar alleged that her remarks, made via tweets and articles in outlets such as Vogue magazine, Firstpost, and Twitter, were defamatory and intended to damage his reputation and political standing.

Case Title: M.J. Akbar vs Priya Ramani

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Click here to read more

20. [Ravish Kumar Moves Delhi HC Against Govt Order on Adani Content] Journalist Ravish Kumar has moved the Delhi High Court, challenging a directive of the Central Government asking him to take down allegedly defamatory videos on his YouTube channel relating to Adani Group and its companies. The matter will be heard by Justice Sachin Datta on Monday. In his plea, Kumar has argued that the order “strikes at the heart of press freedom, which is recognized as the lifeblood of democracy.” He contends that his content falls within the sphere of journalism the Constitution is meant to protect, namely investigations into matters of public concern, corporate accountability, and democratic oversight of powerful institutions.Notably, a similar petition has been filed by digital news platform Newslaundry, challenging a directive of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) seeking removal of content related to Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The plea assails an MIB communication dated September 16, 2025, which directed the platform to take action in compliance with an ex parte gag order passed by the Rohini District Court

Case Title: Ravish Kumar vs Union of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more