Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [September 22- 28, 2025]

1. [Sameer Wankhede against “Ba**ds of Bollywood”] The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the defamation suit filed by IRS officer Sameer Wankhede against the Netflix series “Ba**ds of Bollywood”, ruling that the plaint, in its current form, was “not maintainable.” Wankhede had filed the suit against both Red Chillies Entertainment and Netflix, seeking damages of ₹2 crore. He further requested that any compensation, if awarded, be donated to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital for the benefit of cancer patients. The plea sought a permanent and mandatory injunction, along with a declaration and damages, against Red Chillies Entertainment, Netflix, and others associated with the show.

The IRS officer alleged that his portrayal in “Ba**ds of Bollywood” was “false, malicious, and defamatory,” arguing that the content produced by Red Chillies and broadcast on Netflix misrepresented him. During the hearing, the Court questioned Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Wankhede, on the cause of action, pointing out that the plaint did not clearly establish how a civil suit could be filed in Delhi. Sethi contended that the web series was accessible across cities, including Delhi, and that allegedly defamatory memes also targeted him in the capital. The Court, however, noted that the plaintiff’s averments under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as the specific facts pleaded in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the plaint, were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Although the Court rejected the plaint in its current form, it granted Wankhede liberty to amend it. No fresh hearing date was fixed, with the Court directing that the Registry will list the matter once the amended application is filed.

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

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.

Click here to read more

2. [Delhi HC Urges Consideration of UCC] The Delhi High Court has asked whether it is not time for India to move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), stressing the need for a single legal framework where personal or customary laws do not override national legislation. Justice Arun Monga’s observations came while reflecting on the recurring conflict between Islamic personal law and statutory law, noting that “under Islamic law, a minor girl attaining puberty may lawfully marry, but under Indian criminal law such a marriage renders the husband an offender under the BNS and/or POCSO or both. Underlining that such conflicts between personal and criminal law demand urgent legislative clarity, the Court said: “Before parting, it would be apposite to observe that this conflict warrants legislative clarity. The Legislature must decide whether to continue criminalizing entire communities or to promote peace and harmony through legal certainty.” Justice Monga. Court made the observations while granting bail to Hamiz Raza, who had been accused of marrying a minor girl. While the girl herself claimed to be 20 years old, the prosecution maintained she was a minor, relying on her school records. The FIR was lodged by her stepfather, but in her statement the girl disclosed that the stepfather had sexually assaulted her, leading to a pregnancy and the birth of a child in 2023. That child was later given up for adoption. She further said that Raza later agreed to marry her. The Court noted that the stepfather is currently in custody, and granted bail to Raza against this backdrop of conflicting claims under personal and criminal law.

Case Title: Hamid Raza v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more

3. [Alienation of Affection] The Delhi High Court has held that a civil suit filed by a spouse seeking damages from the alleged paramour of the other spouse is maintainable for intentional interference in a marriage, and accordingly issued summons to the alleged paramour. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a civil suit filed by a wife against her husband’s alleged paramour, seeking Rs 4 crore in damages on the premise that she was entitled to the affection and companionship of her husband, which was allegedly withdrawn due to the active and mala fide conduct of the paramour. The plea was grounded in the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA), alleging that the paramour knowingly and intentionally interfered with the marital relationship, thereby causing its breakdown. Alienation of Affection (AoA) is a common law “heart-balm” tort, originating in Anglo-American jurisprudence, which treats the loss of marital companionship and consortium caused by a third party’s wrongful conduct as a civil injury. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court clarified that there is no absolute right for any individual to maintain intimate relations outside marriage without consequences. "The decision in Joseph Shine decriminalised adultery; it did not create a license to enter into intimate relationships beyond marriage, free from civil or legal implications," the Court said. Accordingly, the Court held that the plaint prima facie disclosed a civil cause of action for tortious interference, i.e., Alienation of Affection, distinct from remedies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.

Case Title: Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

4. [Defamatory Posts on Gaurav Bhatia] The Delhi High Court has held that “attacking the dignity of a person using obscene and sexually suggestive language under the guise of free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances”, as it directed the removal of certain defamatory social media posts targeting Senior Advocate and BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia. The order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal on a suit filed by Bhatia seeking the removal of allegedly derogatory and obscene content posted online after a live television debate featuring him went viral. Court found that certain posts, mainly those by Defendant No.1 (Samajwadi Party Media Cell) and Defendant No.11 (Sandeep), fell outside the bounds of permissible speech.The judge directed that Defendants No.1 and 11 must take down their impugned posts within 24 hours. If they fail, X must de-index and remove them within 72 hours. Additionally, X was directed to immediately remove Vish Patel’s post.At the same time, the Court refused to injunct other posts, noting that satire and humorous commentary fall within the ambit of free speech. Relying on its earlier decision in T.V. Today Network Limited v. NewsLaundry Media Private Limited, the Court reiterated that satire is a form of fair comment under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Case Title: Gaura Bhatia v. Samajwadi party Media Cell & Ors.

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

5. [Telugu Actor Nagarjuna Akkineni's Personality Rights]The Delhi High Court on Thursday, September 25, said it would pass an order on a plea moved by Telugu actor Nagarjuna Akkineni seeking protection of his personality rights. Justice Tejas Karia, who was hearing the matter, orally remarked, “When you can identify the URLs, the best is to direct them to take down… Will pass orders.”He argued that Nagarjuna’s name, image and persona were being misused in multiple ways, including through pornographic websites, unauthorized sale of merchandise, and circulation of AI-generated content such as YouTube shorts and videos. Anand informed the court that 14 infringing URLs had been identified so far. Court observed that while injunctive orders could address such violations, a question remained as to how long such protections should last in the case of public figures with long careers. Nevertheless, the court indicated that it would pass an order safeguarding Nagarjuna’s personality rights. Nagarjuna’s plea follows a series of petitions by other celebrities seeking protection of their personality rights. Recently, filmmaker Karan Johar, actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan moved the High Court alleging misuse of their names and images on products and online platforms without consent.

Case Title: Akkineni Nagarjuna v. www.bfxxx.org & Ors

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

6. [Sunjay Kapur’s Assets in Sealed Cover]The Delhi High Court on Friday permitted Priya Sachdev Kapur, the third wife of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, to submit a list of his movable and immovable assets in a sealed cover. Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing Kapur’s application seeking permission to place on record Sunjay Kapur’s asset details confidentially, with an undertaking that the parties would not disclose information to the media. Recording the consensus between counsels, the Court said, “After canvassing arguments it is agreed that the list of assets of Sunjay Kapur, both movable and immovable, will be filed in court in a sealed cover, copies will be shared with the parties in the lis…” Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Priya Kapur, submitted that neither he, nor other senior counsel, nor the client would make any press statement or leak any information concerning the case. The Court also noted a similar assurance from Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, counsel for Karisma Kapoor’s children, as well as from Rani Kapur and her counsel. Earlier, the Court had observed that such an arrangement could be “problematic.” The judge noted, “As alleged beneficiaries to the estate of late Sunjay Kapoor, they have the right to question the assets disclosed. If tomorrow they have to verify the assets and they are bound by a confidentiality clause, how will they ever defend this case? If they are part of a confidentiality club, they will be circumscribed by confidentiality completely. I am happy to accept any suggestion that does not hamper the rights of any party to this case.”

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

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more

7. [Tahir Hussain Bail Denial] The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, accused in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while pronouncing the judgment, said: “Bail application dismissed.”On March 12, 2025, the trial court refused to grant bail to Hussain, stating that it was not convinced by the applicant's argument that there had been a significant change so as to warrant reconsideration of previous court rulings. The court therefore rejected the bail plea. The case pertains to a FIR registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the basis of the complaint made by Ankit Sharma’s father, Ravinder Kumar. He alleged that on February 25, 2020, his son, who was posted in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), had come back from the office and gone out, and did not return after a long time. The complainant father came to know from local boys that his son Ankit Sharma had been “thrown” into Khajuri Khas “nala” (drain) from the masjid in Chand Bagh pulia after “he was killed.” His body was recovered from the nala.On March 24, 2023, a Delhi court framed murder charges against former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and ten others for “killing an Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer, namely, Ankit Sharma” during the Northeast Delhi riots of 2020.

Case Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v/s State of NCT of Delhi Judgmen

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.

Click here to read more

8. [Arvind Kejriwal Accommodation] The Central Government on Thursday, September 25, 2025, assured the Delhi High Court that Arvind Kejriwal, in his capacity as national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party, would be provided appropriate residential accommodation within ten days. Justice Sachin Datta, who was presiding over the matter, recorded the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Centre. While taking the assurance on record, the judge also remarked that such issues ought to be addressed through a clear procedure. Solicitor General Mehta told the court that Kejriwal would be allotted accommodation in accordance with law within the stipulated time. The assurance was given during the hearing of a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party seeking a government bungalow for its national convener under the General Pool Residential Accommodation guidelines.The petition stated that Kejriwal, as the head of a national party, was entitled to such housing. It also noted that he vacated his official residence at 6, Flagstaff Road in October last year after stepping down as Delhi’s Chief Minister and has since been staying at the official residence of another party member near Mandi House.

Case Title: Aam Aadmi Party vs. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs & Anr

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

9. [News Laundry, Ravish Kumar's Understanding’ With Adani Enterprise] The Delhi High Court on Friday, September 26, disposed of pleas filed by Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar challenging the Centre’s take-down directions against their reports and videos on Adani Enterprises, after the parties informed the Court that an ‘understanding’ had been reached with the company. A bench presided over by Justice Sachin Datta noted that, as per the understanding, the petitioners will not take down any material hosted on their websites or other intermediaries as existing at 12:00 PM on September 26, 2025.” He further recorded that in case any material has already been taken down, the same shall not be re-uploaded.The judge clarified that the arrangement shall subsist only until the Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL)'s application for an interim injunction in the civil suit is decided. Justice Datta also allowed the impleadment applications moved by Adani Enterprises in both matters and directed the petitioners to file amended memos of parties accordingly. Disposing of the pleas, Justice Datta also recorded that the Union of India shall issue a corrigendum to the petitioners in light of the present order, while clarifying that nothing contained in the order shall be construed as an opinion of the Court on the merits of the matter.

Case Title: Newslaundry vs Union of India, Ravish Kumar vs Union of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

10. [Land for Job Scam] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday opposed RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav’s petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR in the land-for-jobs scam. Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju made submissions before a bench led by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, which, after hearing arguments, listed the matter for October 17. ASG argued that Yadav’s plea was not maintainable and should be dismissed on grounds of delay. He further contended that no sanction for prosecution was required, since Yadav’s actions were unrelated to the discharge of his official duties. On September 8, the Delhi High Court took up RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the land-for-jobs case.Appearing for Yadav, Sibal argued that the CBI had failed to secure the mandatory sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before lodging the FIR. He maintained that such sanction was essential since Yadav was then serving as the Union Railway Minister and was discharging official duties.The CBI, on the other hand, accused Yadav of deliberately delaying the trial by not completing arguments on charge before the trial court, though it said the process would conclude the next day.

Case Title: Lalu Prasad Yadav vs CBI

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

11. [FIRs Linked to ‘I Love Muhammad’ Posters] A public interest litigation (PIL) has been moved before the Delhi High Court challenging a series of First Information Reports (FIRs) and arrests connected to the recent “I Love Muhammad” poster controversy that spread across several cities. The petition, filed by the Muslim Students Organisation of India (MSO) along with Raza Academy, a Sunni body, argues that police action unfairly targeted peaceful religious expression.According to the plea, multiple FIRs were registered in districts such as Kaiserganj and Bahraich in Uttar Pradesh against individuals from the Muslim community whose only act, it claims, was to mark their religious festival and express their devotion through posters, banners, and peaceful assemblies.The plea contends that the FIRs are communal in nature and designed to target a specific group. It further asserts that such acts infringe fundamental rights, including the right to equality under Article 14, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Hearing: Expected

Date: 26 September 2025

Click here to read more

12. [Defamatory Posts Targeting Rajdeep Sardesai] The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 5 lakh in compensation to TV Today Network Limited after Twitter user Anurag Srivastava posted a series of defamatory tweets targeting the media house and its journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. The remarks followed Sardesai’s interview with actress Rhea Chakraborty in August 2020. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, delivering the judgment on September 3, 2025, said the tweets were highly defamatory, unsubstantiated and irresponsible, adding that such conduct has to be deprecated.TV Today Network Limited had approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction against Srivastava, along with mandatory directions and damages of over Rs 2 crore. The company alleged that Srivastava’s tweets had harmed its reputation. Taking note of the contentions, the Court said, “Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the objectionable tweets were highly defamatory and remain unsubstantiated by the defendant, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity to do so.”

Case Title: T.V. Today Network Limited vs. Anurag Srivastava & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Click here to read more

13. [Plea Citing Non-Existent Judgments] In what appears to be one of the first instances of alleged “AI hallucination” before the Delhi High Court, a petition was dismissed as withdrawn after it was revealed that the plea relied on fabricated case law and non-existent judicial precedents. The petition had been filed by the Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) before a single-judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia. GWA was challenging orders of the trial court that restricted it from filing its written statement while allowing pleas by various homebuyers.However, during the proceedings, the respondents, homebuyers represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Abhijat, and Sanjay Ghose, produced a compilation alleging that the GWA’s petition cited false and fabricated case law. Among the references questioned was Chitra Narain v. DDA, 2000 (87) DLT 276, which the respondents pointed out does not exist. The petition also cited paragraphs 73 and 74 of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC 850, despite the judgment containing only 27 paragraphs.Confronted with these discrepancies, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.

Case Title: Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) vs Narender Singh & Ors

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Click here to read more

14. [HC Directs RBI, Govt to Address Accessibility Issues] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed both the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Government of India to address the difficulties faced by vulnerable groups, including persons with visual impairment and other disabilities, before introducing new currency notes. A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued the direction while hearing a batch of petitions, including one filed by Rohit Dandriyal, seeking measures to make currency notes and coins, especially the Rs 50 denomination, more accessible and easily identifiable for persons with disabilities (PwDs). Observing that the issue of introducing digital currency or issuing specially designed notes for the benefit of persons with disabilities or the visually impaired falls squarely within the realm of policy-making, the Court said:“Such matters involve technical and financial considerations, which is the domain of the Government of India and the RBI. Thus, any direction in the nature of a mandamus, having regard to the above observations in respect of printing of fresh currency notes in the manner sought by the petitioners, may not be possible to issue.” Disposing of the petitions, the Court expressed its “fond hope and positive anticipation” that the RBI and the Government would faithfully implement the High-Powered Committee’s recommendations.

Case Title: Rohit Dandriyal & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. and Other Connected Matters

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

15. [Misuse of 498 A]While flagging the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court has observed that implicating a husband’s family in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny and often for extraneous or malicious reasons, amounts to an utter misuse of the law. Justice Arun Monga, in a detailed 19-page judgment, underscored that although Section 498A IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband’s relatives must be checked. Court made these observations while hearing a plea by the complainant-wife’s sister-in-law, who sought quashing of an FIR lodged by the complainant-wife under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at Patel Nagar police station in 2018.Court concluded that continuing proceedings against her would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR against her."However, it clarified that the trial against the other co-accused, including the complainant’s in-laws, will continue in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Pooja Rasne @ Puja Rasne vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more

16. [PIL On Removal Of Afzal Guru, Maqbool Bhat’s Graves] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of the graves of terrorists Mohammad Afzal Guru and Mohammad Maqbool Bhat from the premises of Central Jail, Tihar. Filed through Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, the plea sought directions from authorities to relocate the mortal remains to a secret location, if necessary, to prevent glorification of terrorism and misuse of the jail premises During the hearing, the court asked the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, to establish the violation of law. “Which law of the land has been infringed? Violation of the law needs to be first established. Something you wish cannot be subject matter of a PIL,” the bench observed. Sinha submitted that the existence of the graves amounted to glorification of terrorists and violated prison rules. Observing that the matter was highly sensitive and that the government had decided on burial inside the jail in 2013 to avoid law-and-order issues, the Court noted, “Somebody’s last rites have been performed, and that has to be done with solemnity. Can this be challenged after 13 years?” After arguing at length, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to file afresh. The bench accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Case Title: Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh Through its General Secretary & Anr. v. Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

17. [A.R. Rahman Relief] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday overturned an interim injunction that had been granted in favour of veteran classical vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his lawsuit alleging that music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers of the Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan 2 infringed the copyright of his composition “Shiva Stuti” through the song “Veera Raja Veera.” A division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside the earlier single-judge order, thereby allowing Rahman’s appeal.In May this year, the Delhi High Court had stayed the interim injunction originally granted to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his copyright infringement suit concerning “Shiva Stuti.” Dagar had alleged that Rahman and others used the composition in Ponniyin Selvan 2.

Case Title: A.R. Rahman v Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

18. [NHAI Notification Quashed] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, quashed 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, while pronouncing the judgment today, held that the recruitment criteria based on the impugned notification is quashed.On September 18, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on a plea challenging the validity of NHAI’s notification prescribing CLAT PG scores as the sole criterion for the recruitment of its legal officers. 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.”

Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

19. [Patanjali vs Dabur] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, disposed of an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurveda against a single-judge order restraining it from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla examined Patanjali’s advertisement carrying the line, “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” The Court ruled that Patanjali can use the phrase “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash” but directed it to delete the “made with 40 herbs” reference, noting it was a clear allusion to Dabur, which markets its product as containing 40 herbs.Accordingly, the Court allowed Patanjali to continue using the word “ordinary” but upheld the remaining aspects of the single judge’s order. The appeal was disposed of with this modification.

Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved v. Dabur India Limited

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

Click here to read more

20. [Devangana Kalita’s plea] The Delhi High Court on Monday, September 22, 2025, partly allowed Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita’s plea, directing the Delhi Police to preserve case diaries linked to the Jafrabad violence during the riots, while rejecting her request for their reconstruction. Kalita, a Pinjra Tod activist and an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, had approached the court seeking both reconstruction and preservation of the diaries.Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while pronouncing the verdict, confirmed the earlier interim order of December 2, 2024, which required the Delhi Police to preserve the case diaries pertaining to the Jafrabad violence during the riots. “The petition is partly allowed. As far as the request for preservation is concerned, the interim order is made absolute. So far as reconstruction of police diary is concerned, the same is rejected,” Justice Dudeja said.

Case Title: Devangana Kalita Vs. State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

21. [Cross-FIRs Between Neighbours] While quashing a cross FIR between neighbours over their pets, the Delhi High Court has asked the respective parties to serve Amul Chaach tetra packs along with mix vegetable pizzas to inmates of Sanskar Ashram, near GTB Hospital in Dilshad Garden. Justice Arun Monga, while allowing the petitions, directed that the complainants and accused should “join hands and jointly bear the expenses”. The court clarified that the exercise shall be treated as community service, to be carried out by all parties together. “Each inmate and the attendants and other staff of the Ashram shall be served one pizza along with Amul Chaach tetra pack. The pizzas shall be baked by the complainant in FIR No. 220/2025 dated 05.05.2025 registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park and the same shall be treated as the community service to be jointly carried out by all the complainants and the accused,” the order reads.

Case Title: Arvind Kumar and Others v The State and Another

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Click here to read more