Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up-News Updates [August 4-9, 2025]

1. [Dhruv Rathee Defamation Case] A Delhi Court has summoned a notary public in BJP leader Suresh Nakhua’s ongoing defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, after serious questions were raised about the authenticity of a key certificate filed under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. As per the tweet of the BJP leader, the notary has been summoned to verify the date of attestation of documents, which is dated January 27. The controversy arises from a defamation suit filed by Nakhua, BJP Mumbai spokesperson, over a July 7 YouTube video posted by Rathee titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.” Nakhua claims the video falsely brands him a “violent and abusive troll” without justification, damaging his personal and professional reputation.

Case Title: Suresh Karamshi Nakhua v. Dhruv Rathee and Ors.

Bench: District Judge Gunjan Gupta

Click here to read more

2. [Contempt of Court] A Delhi Court has ruled that failure to furnish bail bonds cannot be treated as contempt of court under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), setting aside a magistrate’s order that had convicted two accused for contempt and sentenced one of them to stand in Court with hands raised till its rising. The case arose from an Appeal filed by Kuldeep and Rakesh, who were facing trial before the Magistrate in a complaint case titled Harkesh Jain v. Anil & Ors.The accused were granted bail on January 20, 2025, and were directed to furnish bonds by February 18, 2025. Despite adjournments, the bonds were not submitted. On July 15, 2025, the Magistrate held them guilty of contempt for “wasting court time” and convicted them under Section 228 IPC.

Case Title: Kuldeep & Anr. v. Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna

Click here to read more

3. [PWD Hiring Probe] A Delhi Court has accepted the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a corruption case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former PWD Minister Satyendar Jain, citing lack of incriminating evidence even after years of investigation. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at Rouse Avenue Courts noted that despite a prolonged probe, the CBI had not found any material to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or any other criminal offence. The FIR, registered in 2018, was based on a complaint from the Delhi Government’s Directorate of Vigilance. It alleged that Jain and Public Works Department officials had irregularly hired a “Creative Team” of consultants in violation of recruitment and financial rules, with project payments improperly charged to unrelated schemes like “Barapulla Phase-III,” without Finance Department clearance.

Case Title: CBI v. Satyendar Jain & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh

Click here to read more

4. [Agusta Westland VVIP Chopper Deal Scam] A Delhi Court on Thursday dismissed the application filed by alleged Agusta Westland middleman Christian Michel James seeking release under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), holding that the provision does not apply in his case due to the inclusion of serious charges carrying punishment up to life imprisonment. Section 436A deals with the maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained. Michel, a British national extradited from the UAE in December 2018, had sought release on the ground that he had already spent more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence, seven years, in custody for the offences for which he was extradited.

Case Title: CBI. v. SP Tyagi

Bench: Special Judge Sanjay Jindal

Click here to read more

5. [Udaipur Files] The Delhi High Court has cleared the release of Udaipur Files, rejecting a plea by Kanhaiya Lal murder case accused Mohd. Javed to stall the film. Set to hit theatres on Friday, August 8, the movie is based on the 2022 Udaipur killing. Javed claimed its content, allegedly mirroring the chargesheet, would prejudice his right to a fair trial. The Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found no merit in the plea, noting, “The petitioner has not been able to establish a prima facie case in his favour.”