The Delhi High Court observed that no special fast-track courts exist in the capital for trying honour killing cases, despite the Supreme Court’s 2018 directions in Shakti Vahini v Union of India. The Court said it would examine the issue through its administrative side in consultation with the Delhi government.

The Bench directed the petitioners, including the mother of a victim, to make a representation to the High Court’s administrative side and the Delhi government so that the matter can be considered through proper consultation.

It added that any gaps identified would be addressed appropriately.

With these observations, the writ petition was closed, allowing the petitioners to pursue the representation process.

[Dhanak of Humanity & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has granted default bail to Jaivardhan Dhawan in an NDPS case, holding that extending the investigation period without notice violated Article 21.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that an accused must be produced, physically or virtually, when the prosecution seeks more time for investigation, as this safeguard is essential to protect the right to default bail.

Dhawan was arrested after seizure of Codeine Phosphate tablets from multiple consignments, though only a small quantity was allegedly recovered from his residence.

Finding that the mandatory requirement of notice was not followed, the High Court set aside the extension order and held that Dhawan’s right to default bail accrued automatically.

[Jaivardhan Dhawan v. Narcotics Control Bureau]

Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, linked to the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub where a fire killed 25 people, have sought four weeks’ transit anticipatory bail in a Delhi court. 

They stated they had traveled to Thailand for work and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The Delhi court, however, denied immediate relief.

Meanwhile, Goa authorities have started demolishing the nightclub’s Vagator beach property, and Interpol has issued a Blue Corner Notice.

The probe continues, with co-owner Ajay Gupta already in police custody.

The Calcutta High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor aged between 12 and 14 years.

The Court held that a child cannot consent to sexual relations, even in a claimed love relationship, and that the victim’s affection cannot dilute statutory protection under the POCSO Act.

It relied on the victim’s consistent testimony, medical evidence, and a DNA report indicating the accused could not be excluded as the child’s biological father.

The Court also observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was justified as the minor stayed silent due to emotional dependence.

[Santosh Srivastava @ Manu Srivastava v. State of West Bengal & Anr.]

Former ICICI Bank MD & CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar have approached the Bombay High Court challenging the ED’s attachment of their properties in the Videocon-linked money laundering case.

The matter arises after the ED appealed to the Appellate SAFEMA Tribunal when the adjudicating authority under the PMLA declined to confirm the entire attachment.

The tribunal upheld the forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, finding that a ₹64 crore loan to NuPower Renewables from Videocon reflected a quid pro quo following a ₹300 crore ICICI loan, and treating related transactions and a South Mumbai flat as proceeds of crime. 

The matter is listed for December 16.

[Deepak Kochhar & Ors. v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking the establishment of dedicated special courts to deal with cybercrime cases, despite rising incidents of financial fraud, data theft, cyberstalking, and online harassment.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that no statutory mandate exists for establishing exclusive courts for cybercrimes and noted that special courts can be created only where the statute itself provides for them, as seen under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act.

Refusing to issue any directions, the Court nevertheless permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authorities for appropriate consideration.

[Vijay Bhaskar Verma v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and MeitY on a petition seeking mandatory accessibility features in television content for persons with visual and hearing disabilities.

The plea alleges that, despite statutory obligations under the RPwD Act, 2016, most TV programming remains inaccessible. It also asserts that the 2019 accessibility standards were never notified under Rule 15, leaving broadcasters with no binding compliance requirements.

The Court asked the Centre to clarify the absence of audio-description norms and to place current accessibility data on record.

The matter is listed for January 29, 2026.

[Rahul Bajaj v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has held that the sanctity of trap proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is compromised if the washing of hands of the accused and complainant and sealing of the recovered bribe money are done at the police station instead of the trap location.

The Court said that such lapses indicate casual investigation and directed the DGP and Principal Secretary (Home) to issue circulars ensuring compliance at the spot.

Allowing bail, the Court noted doubts over the trap proceedings and the lack of investigation into key issues.

[Suresh Prakash Gautam v. State of UP]

The Delhi High Court issued notices to the Centre, the Delhi government, the Delhi Police, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on a petition seeking a ban on the import, breeding, sale, and domestication of ferocious dog breeds.

The plea was filed by the father of a 6-year-old who sustained grievous injuries after a Pitbull allegedly attacked him on November 23.

The petitioner said earlier complaints about the same dog were ignored and sought compensation and an inquiry into official inaction.

The Court directed MCD not to release the dog without precautions and asked police to act on the FIR, with a status report due in four weeks.

[Dinesh Kumar Roy v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court closed Twitter India’s 2020 petition challenging multiple FIRs registered across states for allegedly promoting a tweet on “Khalistan” by Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

The Court was examining Twitter India’s request to quash or club these FIRs, arguing that it had no control over user content and that parallel FIRs could not be maintained for the same alleged act.

After noting that five years had passed and several states were unrepresented, the Court said there was no reason to keep the matter pending.

It recorded status updates from some states and disposed of the petition.

[Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India]

The Supreme Court on Monday directed a forensic voice analysis of an audio clip in which Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi is allegedly heard using a communal slur.

The Court said the State police had abused its authority by prosecuting Islamuddin Ansari, observing that the materials on record showed no case was made out against him.

It noted that instead of acting on the complaint regarding the officer’s conduct, the police initiated proceedings against the complainant.

The Court quashed the case against Ansari and ordered that the voice clip be examined by a certified forensic laboratory to verify the allegations.

[Islamuddin Ansari v. State of UP]

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently upheld the preventive detention of Waseem Ahmed Dar under the J&K Public Safety Act, following allegations that he uploaded anti-national content on Facebook to promote terrorism and radicalize youth.

The Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition, finding that procedural safeguards were followed and the detaining authority had adequately applied its mind to the evidence, including Facebook screenshots.

It observed that preventive detention was justified to avert activities prejudicial to state security, and ordinary criminal law was insufficient.

The Court concluded there was no constitutional violation, maintaining the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara.

The Delhi High Court directed social media and e-commerce platforms to treat NTR Junior’s suit as a complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and take action within three days. The platforms must also inform the actor about the action taken.

NTR Jr approached the Court alleging that infringing and defamatory material was circulating online, violating his personality rights.

The Court reiterated that parties must first exhaust statutory remedies under the 2021 Rules before seeking judicial intervention in takedown requests.

A formal order will be issued on December 22.

[Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.] 

Former JNU scholar Umar Khalid has approached Delhi’s Karkardooma Court seeking interim bail in the Delhi riots conspiracy case to attend his sister’s wedding. He has requested bail from December 14 to December 29, with the wedding scheduled for December 27.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai is set to hear the plea on December 11. The Supreme Court is currently hearing Khalid’s regular bail application, and had issued notice on his bail plea on September 22.

Khalid was previously granted a short interim bail in December 2024 to attend a cousin’s wedding. The Delhi High Court had earlier denied him bail on September 2, 2025.

Khalid, arrested in September 2020, faces charges including criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

[Umar Khalid v. State]