The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the NLU Consortium, Bar Council of India (BCI), University Grants Commission (UGC), and the Central Government on a plea challenging the ₹30,000 counselling deposit and ₹20,000 confirmation fee for CLAT-PG admissions.

The petitioner had argued that the charges are discriminatory and exorbitant, and such a huge amount is unprecedented and has no relation whatsoever with the object and purpose for which the counselling is being requested.

The Court listed the matter for further hearing on July 2, 2025. A similar petition is also pending before the Kerala High Court, which is scheduled to take it up on July 22. 

The Delhi High Court ordered Ghadi detergent's parent company, RSPL Ltd., to remove three disparaging phrases targeting HUL's Surf Excel: “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate”, “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai” and “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai” from its ads. 

Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that while comparative advertising is permissible, it cannot extend to defamation, as RSPL had deliberately invoked Surf Excel’s renowned slogans and imagery like “Daag Acche Hai” and XL Blue packaging . 

The court has asked RSPL to file a response within two weeks. The matter is listed for July 16.

The Delhi High Court directed CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) to issue a No Objection Certificate within four weeks in a pending case of inter-country adoption case that’s been delayed for over four years. 

The child's adoptive parents, Australian citizens, executed the Adoption Deed in 2020 under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA). CARA resisted approval, citing missing Hague Convention documents and disputing the validity of their grandmother’s General Power of Attorney under Queensland law.

The Court held that finalised HAMA adoptions are not subject to additional requirements and noted no objection from Australian authorities .

Relying on precedent, including Prema Gopal and Narinderjit Kaur, the Court ordered CARA to process the NOC based on existing District Magistrate certificates .

The Delhi High Court issued notice to Delhi Police on a plea alleging serious lapses in handling the custody of girls rescued from sex trafficking rackets in Burari and Wazirabad, questioning whether the police’s failure had led to the re-trafficking of the victims.

The Court noted that minors were returned to their so-called parents without medical examinations or involvement of the Child Welfare Committee, violating the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and further highlighted the absence of FIRs and proper rehabilitation measures, and the risk of re-trafficking.

The Court will next hear the matter on July 17 and consider the demand for a SOP based on NHRC guidelines.

The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark infringement suit filed by Titan Company Limited against Lenskart Solutions Private Limited for unauthorised use of the registered trademarks "TITAN" and "FASTRACK" on Lenskart’s website and in metatags. 

The Court took note of Titan’s prior legal notice dated 13th February 2025 and Lenskart’s admission of an inadvertent mistake. 

The Court recorded Lenskart’s assurance that it had removed the infringing content and would promptly comply with future takedown requests.

The Court decreed the suit through a consent decree, making Lenskart bound by its statements, and waived court fees and closed the matter without issuing a summons or proceeding to trial.

The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction in favor of DAZN, restraining 23 rogue websites from illegally streaming the FIFA Club World Cup 2025, over which DAZN holds exclusive media rights.

Justice Saradh Banerjee observed a prima facie case of copyright infringement, observing that the websites were concealing their identities and unlawfully broadcasting of DAZN’s content through redirection and masking.

The court held that DAZN is entitled to protection of its intellectual property and granted liberty to seek further blocking of infringing domains. The matter will be heard next on October 8, 2025. (Dazn Limited & And v. Buffsports.me & Ors)

The Delhi High Court will hear on June 23 a plea challenging the ₹30,000 counselling fee for CLAT PG admissions, imposed by the Consortium of NLUs.

Filed by Jatin Shrivastava (AIR 474), the petition argues that the fee, along with ₹20,000 non-refundable confirmation charges per round, is excessive and financially burdensome, especially for economically weaker candidates.

The Court noted that such charges lack transparency and may violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner, dependent on an education loan and his mother’s income, argued that this fee structure acts as a barrier to education.

A similar plea is pending before the Kerala High Court, which is scheduled to hear the matter on July 22.

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail in an NDPS case, holding that mere WhatsApp messages and phone calls with co-accused cannot establish guilt without direct, corroborative evidence. 

The applicants, licensed pharmacists, were accused of engaging in the narcotics trade based on financial transactions and digital communication.

The Court noted that no illegal substances were recovered from the applicants, and they had a clean background. Referring to Dalip Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), it stated that indirect evidence and statements made by a co-accused cannot be relied on unless supported by additional proof.

As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicants were not guilty and granted conditional bail.

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Domino’s Pizza, restraining 15 entities from using names like “Domnic’s”, “Dominic”, “Daminic” and others on pizzas, packaging, or promotional material, citing deceptive similarity. 

Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that in edible goods, even minor confusion can risk public health. 

The court found prima facie infringement of registered marks and ordered Swiggy and Zomato to delist, take down or suspend such outlets. 

Defendants are barred from using these marks until the next hearing on September 17. (Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr v M/s Domnics Pizza & Ors)

The Delhi High Court, in a suo motu case, sought a finalised plan for constructing a foot-over bridge for Rajputana Rifles soldiers. These soldiers are compelled to wade through a filthy, sometimes waist-deep drain four times daily while heading to the parade ground. 

Taking cognisance of a Hindustan Times report titled A smelly trail from barracks to grounds, the Court directed the PWD, Delhi Cantonment Board, and traffic police to jointly devise a plan, with costs to be borne by PWD.

The Court noted that the bridge was approved in 2000 but remains unbuilt, and instructed the Cantonment Board to seek Army assistance if needed.