Delhi High Court Judgments, Legal News & Updates

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court’s Adverse Remarks Against CBI in Excise Policy Case

The Delhi High Court today stayed adverse remarks and directions for a departmental inquiry made by a trial court against the CBI and its investigating officer.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, on the CBI's revision petition challenging their discharge.

The Court also directed the trial court to postpone hearings in the connected PMLA case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the discharge order effectively amounted to an "acquittal without trial" and ignored scientific evidence.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on March 16, 2026.

[Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.]

Read Details / 19 hours ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Live-in Relationship Between Consenting Adults Cannot be Obstructed by Parents: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults cannot be obstructed by parents or relatives.

The case arose after a young couple approached the Court seeking police protection, alleging threats from the woman’s father, who opposed their relationship. The couple stated they had been in a relationship since 2024 and had executed a live-in relationship agreement in February 2026 before starting to live together.

The Court observed that adults have the autonomy to choose their partners and reside together, even outside marriage.

Referring to the SC’s ruling in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that consenting adults have an unfettered right to live together, protected under Article 21.

[Kartik & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.]

Read Order / 2 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Delhi High Court Restrains Foreign Entities from Issuing Groundless Copyright Strikes Against TV9

The Delhi High Court restrained several foreign media organizations from issuing copyright infringement threats against TV9 Network.

The Court was hearing a plea by TV9 challenging YouTube copyright strikes over news footage of global events, including wars and natural disasters.

The Court observed that TV9 used only brief, segmented extracts within larger news narratives, constituting "fair use" under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. Holding that such limited usage for news reporting does not amount to independent commercial exploitation.

Consequently, the Court granted an injunction against the foreign entities, noting their failure to initiate formal legal proceedings despite issuing multiple strike notices.

[Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors.]

Read Judgement / 3 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Clean Court Washrooms are Integral to Constitutional Dignity: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that clean and accessible washrooms in court complexes are not merely facilities but integral to constitutional dignity.

The case arose from a petition by a woman advocate highlighting unhygienic conditions in the Saket District Court washrooms, including non-functional toilets and lack of water. The Court observed that court complexes are “constitutional spaces” where citizens seek justice, and inadequate sanitation undermines dignity, health, and equality.

It emphasised that rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 require institutions to provide basic facilities accommodating biological realities.

Recording assurances from the Public Works Department that improvements would be maintained, the Court disposed of the petition while stressing continued compliance.

Read Details / 3 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Penalty for Delay in Compensation Must be Paid by Employer, Not Insurance Company: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

Read Details / 3 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ACCKO’ Trademark as Deceptively Similar to ‘ACKO’

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark 'ACCKO' from the Trade Marks Register, ruling it deceptively similar to the well-known insurance brand 'ACKO'.

Justice Jyoti Singh found that 'ACCKO', used by a logistics company, was phonetically and visually nearly identical to 'ACKO', which has been a registered "well-known" trademark since 2016.

The Court noted that the slight spelling variation was a deliberate attempt to ride on ACKO’s established reputation, likely causing consumer confusion.

Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel the infringing 'ACCKO' mark to protect the integrity of the original brand.

[Acko Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.]

Read Judgement / 6 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Delhi High Court Stays Order Halting Bail to Uday Bhanu Chib, Cites "No Application of Mind" by Sessions Court

The Delhi High Court recently stayed a Sessions Court order that had put on hold the bail granted to Indian Youth Congress President Uday Bhanu Chib.

The Bench observed that the lower court’s order reflected "no application of mind" and lacked clear reasoning.

A Magistrate initially granted Chib bail following a protest at the India AI Impact Summit, but the Sessions Court stayed that release ex parte. The High Court held that orders staying bail must disclose how precedents apply to the specific facts of the case.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 6.

[Uday Bhanu Chib v. State of NCT of Delhi]

Read Details / 6 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Delhi High Court: Passport, Foreign Travel Part of Article 21; Sets Aside Impounding Order

The Delhi High Court has held that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the Centre’s decision to impound the passport of Yogesh Raheja, former Director of Raheja Developers, for allegedly not disclosing an FIR at the time of renewal.

The Court observed that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings unless a competent court has taken cognisance.

Since cognisance was taken after the impounding order, the action failed the test of reasonableness and natural justice. The impounding and appellate orders were accordingly quashed.

Read Details / 9 days ago

MananBookmark

Delhi High Court Refuses to Stop 'Baby Forest' from Using Name in Forest Essentials Trademark Row

The Delhi High Court recently refused to stop the brand 'Baby Forest' from using its name, ruling that no company can claim a monopoly over the common word "Forest."

The Court upheld a previous decision, holding that a brand must provide stringent evidence to prove a dictionary word has gained a specific secondary meaning.

Following the anti-dissection rule, the Court compared the marks as a whole rather than focusing on a single word.

It found the packaging and logos distinct enough to prevent confusion for an average buyer and dismissed the plea for an interim injunction.

[Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.]

Read Judgement / 9 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Delhi High Court Revives Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sameer Wankhede

The Delhi High Court has set aside a January 2026 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering at the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum and restraining the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) from proceeding further.

The proceedings arise from allegations examined by a Special Enquiry Team following Wankhede’s role in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug case, which had also led to the arrest of Aryan Khan.

The High Court’s ruling allows the disciplinary process to continue.

Read Details / 10 days ago

MananBookmark

Delhi High Court Declines Writ Over Woman’s Death During Nepal Protests, Cites Disputed Facts

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Ghaziabad-based businessman alleging that negligence by the Central government led to the death of his wife during protests in Nepal in September 2025.

The Court held that the matter was “incapable of being adjudicated” under writ jurisdiction as it involved disputed questions of fact and law requiring evidence.

The petitioner had sought a declaration that his fundamental right under Article 21 was violated and urged the Court to direct the Centre to frame a protocol for Indians travelling to sensitive nations. The Court suggested that a Public Interest Litigation may be a more appropriate remedy.

The plea was withdrawn with liberty to pursue other legal remedies.

Read Details / 10 days ago

MananBookmark

Delhi High Court: Family Pension Under Army Regulations Only for Lawfully Married Spouse

The Delhi High Court held that a family pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, is strictly reserved for a "lawfully married" spouse.

The Court rejected a claim by a second wife, noting that her marriage took place while the soldier's first wife was still alive and not legally divorced.

The Bench emphasized that under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, such a second marriage is "void in law" from its inception.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the eventual death of the first wife does not automatically validate the second marriage or grant pension rights.

[Vidya Devi v. UOI & Ors.]

Read Judgment / 10 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Merely Being Ultimate Beneficiary Not a Ground to be made Party to Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court said that a person or organisation cannot be forced into arbitration if they did not sign the contract, even if they benefit from the project.

Arbitration is based on agreement between parties, and only those who agreed to it can be included.

The Court clarified that just being the “ultimate beneficiary” of a project is not enough to make someone part of an arbitration case.

In this matter, the Court removed the Indian Institute of Management Jammu from the arbitration proceedings, as it was not a signatory to the contract.

[M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt Ltd v. Central Public Works Department & Anr.]

Read Judgment / 11 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Wife's Unpaid Household Work an Important Aspect in Determining Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi HC, while deciding a revision petition, held that the law must recognise the economic value of the unpaid household work done by a homemaker wife.

The capacity to earn and actually earning are two different concepts; mere capacity to earn cannot be a ground to deny maintenance.

The case stems from a marriage, wherein the husband left the wife and the child to settle in Kuwait in August 2020. Family Court under Section 125 CrPC granted interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 to the wife and Rs 40,000 for the Child.

The HC upheld the order as balanced and reasonable.

[Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray]

Read Details / 11 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Delhi High Court: Break-Up Alone Not Abetment of Suicide Under BNS, Grants Bail

The Delhi High Court has held that a mere romantic break-up does not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice Manoj Jain observed while granting bail to Noor Mohammad, accused of abetting his former girlfriend’s suicide by allegedly pressuring her to convert her religion.

The Court noted the absence of any suicide note or dying declaration attributing blame. It stressed that “instigation” must be of such intensity that it leaves the deceased with no option but to take the extreme step.

Finding no material showing such provocation and noting a time gap between the break-up and the death, the Court granted bail subject to conditions.

[Noor Mohammad v. State NCT of Delhi]

Read Details / 12 days ago

MananBookmark