The Central Government and Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that social media platform X could lose its "safe harbour" protection for failing to remove allegedly offensive tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub.

The Centre argued that X had "actual knowledge" of the content through police notices and a trial court order directing an FIR against Ayyub. Under the IT Rules, 2021, such knowledge triggers a statutory obligation for intermediaries to remove unlawful content.

The Court previously described the tweets regarding Hindu deities & Savarkar, as "highly derogatory and communal."

The Court has directed the authorities to ensure interim takedown orders are executed.

[Amita Sachdeva v. X Corp & Ors.]

The CBI opposed pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.

It argued that merely attending a seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), linked to the RSS, does not establish judicial bias.

The agency termed the allegations “sweeping” and warned that such reasoning could lead to judges being asked to recuse in numerous cases.

It also pointed out that the judge had passed both favourable and adverse orders in the matter, indicating no prejudice. The matter is scheduled for further hearing before the Delhi High Court.

[CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court directed the Copyright Office to decide within eight weeks the application filed by AI researcher Stephen Thaler seeking copyright registration for artwork generated by an artificial intelligence system.

Thaler has sought recognition of the AI system as the author of the work.

The Court did not examine the merits of the claim but instructed the authority to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

The matter arises after the Copyright Office had earlier refused registration, leading to the present proceedings before the High Court.

[Stephen Thaler v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court dismissed cross petitions in a transnational child custody dispute, reiterating that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

The Court held that foreign court orders and the child’s foreign citizenship are not decisive and cannot override the child’s best interests, especially when the child has developed strong roots in India.

Emphasising that such orders are only persuasive, not binding, the Court noted that custody issues involving complex facts should not be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Both parties were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under relevant laws for a detailed determination of custody.

[Aman Kathpal v. UOI & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court held that repeatedly filing defective petitions to circumvent limitation periods amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court observed that an initial filing lacking essential requirements such as affidavits, signatures, vakalatnama, or court fees cannot be treated as a valid filing to save limitation.

It emphasised that merely re-filing such defective petitions multiple times does not cure the fundamental defects or extend statutory timelines.

The Court reiterated that limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strict and inflexible, and dismissed the petition, stressing that procedural misuse cannot defeat statutory mandates.

[Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd.]

The Delhi Police have revealed that Shrinivas Luis, a 47-year-old arrested from Mysuru, sent seven hoax bomb threat emails to the Supreme Court and over 50 to the Delhi High Court.

An analysis of 1,500 emails sent by Luis over the past year showed he targeted High Courts across India, including Mumbai, Karnataka, and Gujarat, and even institutions abroad.

Investigators found that Luis, a former law student, harbored deep resentment against the judiciary and used VPNs to mask his identity, though he was eventually tracked through non-encrypted emails.

Police have seized laptops and mobile phones, noting that the accused was reportedly suffering from depression.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that opening a car door without checking for oncoming traffic constitutes "sheer negligence."

Court affirmed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's decision, holding a car driver liable for a collision with a 21-year-old motorcyclist. The victim suffered 90% functional disability, resulting in traumatic paraplegia.

The Court rejected the insurer’s plea of contributory negligence, stating that safety distance regulations do not excuse a driver’s failure to monitor their surroundings before opening a door.

The Court upheld the compensation award, emphasizing the life-altering impact on the claimant’s earning capacity and lifelong need for an attendant.

[IndusInd General Insurance v. Roshan Kumar Sahu]

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal has filed an application in the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s challenge to his discharge in the liquor policy case.

Kejriwal, who intends to argue the application in person, expressed a "reasonable apprehension" that the hearing may lack impartiality.

This follows a February 27 trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, while criticizing the CBI’s investigation.

Justice Sharma had previously observed on March 9 that the trial court’s findings appeared "prima facie erroneous," prompting Kejriwal to earlier seek a transfer of the case through the High Court Registry and the Supreme Court.

[CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that mere filing of an earlier arbitration-related plea does not confer jurisdiction for subsequent applications under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when the earlier plea was withdrawn without adjudication.

The Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be real and legally sustainable, not created artificially through procedural filings.

Rejecting a plea for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate, it held that the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ranchi courts, and prior proceedings in Delhi could not override this.

It also cautioned against attempts at forum shopping through strategic filings.

[SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court clarified that the right to education under Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009 guarantees free and compulsory education only up to the age of 14, and does not include the right to study in a particular school of one’s choice.

The Court observed that the State’s obligation is limited to ensuring access to education, not fulfilling individual preferences regarding institutions.

It further noted that admission rights arise only through prescribed procedures such as applications and selection processes, and cannot be claimed as an absolute entitlement to a specific school.

[Pooja as guardian of Baby Devanshi Jaiswar v. Aadharshila Vidyapeeth & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court held that bail conditions cannot extend to invading the privacy of an accused’s family members, setting aside directions that required police surveillance of the accused’s wife.

The trial court had ordered monitoring measures such as deployment of a police officer, collection of call records, and assessment of her living conditions.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani termed these as “wholly unacceptable intrusions” since the wife was not an accused.

The Court clarified that bail conditions can only be imposed on the accused, not third parties, and must remain reasonable and lawful, while upholding the accused’s interim bail.

[Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court has reopened scrutiny of Arvind Kejriwal’s acquittal in cases related to alleged non-compliance with Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons in the excise policy probe.

Acting on the ED’s plea, the Court issued notice and sought Kejriwal’s response, signalling fresh judicial examination of whether his conduct amounted to “wilful disobedience.”

The trial court had earlier acquitted him, holding that mere non-appearance did not establish intentional defiance. Challenging this, the ED argued that repeated absence was deliberate.

The High Court will now assess whether the legal threshold for non-compliance under enforcement proceedings was correctly applied.

The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case involving actor Rajpal Yadav after he failed to settle outstanding dues with M/s Murli Projects Private Limited.

The Court expressed frustration over contradictory submissions made by Yadav and his counsel regarding the payment of approximately ₹7.75 crore.

Although Yadav sought an additional 30 days to pay ₹6 crore for a one-time settlement, the Court denied the extension, stating that repeated assurances had not been met.

Previously, Yadav served jail time after failing to comply with earlier settlement orders before receiving an interim suspension of his sentence.

[M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajpal Yadav]

The Delhi High Court awarded over ₹152 crore in damages to Communication Components Antenna (CCA) after finding the Rosenberger Group guilty of infringing a patent related to asymmetrical beam antenna technology.

Justice Prathiba M Singh issued a permanent injunction against the German-based group, restraining them from selling or promoting infringing antennas used in 4G LTE networks.

The Court found that Rosenberger’s products, marketed to providers like Reliance Jio, near-identically matched CCA’s proprietary beam patterns designed to increase network capacity.

Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893, directing the registry to issue a formal certificate of validity.

[Communication Components Antenna v. Rosenberger]