LiveLaw Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026 [Citations 552 - 597]

LAKSH VIR SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 552

SK v. KS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 553

AKKINENI NAGA CHAITANYA v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 554

SANDEEP @ SUNNY v. STATE & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 555

SHEWTA TUTEJA & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 556

Devangana Kalita v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 557

Raman Gandhi v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 558

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram Avtar Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 562

S v. M & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 563

Md. Rashid Khan v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 564

Rekha Sabharwal v. Management of Saai Memorial Girls School & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 565

Prem Singh v. C.S. Rathore 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 566

Sandeep Goel v. Zavenir Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 567

SYED FAYAZUDDIN AND ANR v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 568

Anil Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Devi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 569

Anju Dhawan v. M/S. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 570

NBCC India Limited v. GNC Infra LLP & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 571

Ramesh Chandra Dubey & Anr. v. Nandlal 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 572

M/S Shyam Lal & Sons v. Smt. Mithlesh Devi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 573

TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 575

R.K. Jain Infra Projects Private Limited v. NHAI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 576

M/S EG Communications Pvt Ltd & Ors v. ECI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 577

S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 578

Ms. Mamta Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 579

Akshay Mahara v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 580

R.S.C. College v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 581

Badminton Association of India v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 582

D v. G 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 583

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 584

Grew Energy Private Limited v. NTPC Renewable Energy Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 585

AITA v. Somdev Kishore Devvarman & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 586

Minor R (Thr. Her Father R) v. State & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 587

G v. M 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 588

Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath And Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 589

National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 590

Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 591

Delhi High Court Recognises Right To Be Forgotten, Lays Down Framework For De-Indexing Judicial Records

Title: LAKSH VIR SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 552

The Delhi High Court has held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sachin Datta laid down the framework governing de-indexing and masking of personal information from judicial records available online.

Justice Datta decided a batch of petitions filed by various individuals who had been acquitted, discharged, parties to matrimonial disputes, or whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records, seeking removal of links, masking of identities, or de-indexing of judicial records from internet search results.

Special Marriage Act | 1-Year Waiting Period For Filing Divorce Plea Can Be Waived In Cases Of 'Exceptional Hardship': Delhi High Court

Title: SK v. KS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 553

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory one-year waiting period for filing a divorce petition under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, can be waived in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the marriage would only prolong the parties' hardship.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar allowed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking waiver of the statutory period prescribed under Section 29 read with Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act.

Delhi High Court Protects Actor Naga Chaitanya's Personality Rights Against Pornographic Content, Unauthorised Merchandise

Title: AKKINENI NAGA CHAITANYA v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 554

The Delhi High Court passed an ex parte ad interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya.

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained several websites, online sellers and unidentified persons from exploiting the actor's name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes through pornographic content, AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.

Delhi High Court Urges Courts To Fast-Track FIR Registration Pleas In Cases Concerning 'Unnatural Death' Of Young Bride

Title: SANDEEP @ SUNNY v. STATE & other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 555

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over delays in registration of FIRs in cases involving the unnatural death of young married women.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma urged the courts to give greater urgency to pleas seeking registration of FIRs where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to act within time.

“This Court hopes that, in future, applications seeking directions for registration of FIR, concerning the unnatural death of a young woman within a short period of marriage, particularly where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to register an FIR, shall be taken up with greater urgency by the Courts and be listed on shorter dates so that the issue of registration of FIR and commencement of investigation is not left unresolved for months together,” the Court said.

ART Act Is Regulatory, Not Meant To Create Insurmountable Barriers To Parenthood: Delhi High Court

Title: SHEWTA TUTEJA & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, is fundamentally regulatory in character and is not meant to create insurmountable barriers defeating legitimate continuation of treatment processes already lawfully undertaken.

“This Court is also conscious of the fact that reproductive rights and access to parenthood in the contemporary constitutional jurisprudence cannot be reduced to purely technical or pedantic application of statutory conditions divorced from factual context in which such rights are asserted,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

Delhi Riots: High Court Vacates Interim Order Restraining Trial Court From Passing Final Orders On Framing Of Charge

Case Title: Devangana Kalita v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 557

The Delhi High Court vacated its 2024 interim order restraining the trial court from passing any final order on framing of charges against the accused persons in relation to the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy into 2020 North East Delhi riots.

For context, the trial court is at the final stages of reserving the matter on framing of charges in the larger conspiracy case. While all the accused have concluded their arguments, the Delhi Police has to make its rejoinder submissions.

However, the Court allowed another plea filed by Kalita seeking permission to inspect unrelied documents stored in the malkhana.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Fresh Elections For Delhi Bar Council Over Ballot Tampering Allegations

Case : Raman Gandhi v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 558

The Delhi High Court has refused to order a fresh election to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), holding that the discovery of tampered ballot papers during counting did not vitiate the entire electoral process and therefore did not warrant a re-poll.

The Court upheld the decision of the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee (HPESC), which had directed that counting recommence from the stage of second-preference vote counting after the ballot-tampering incident came to light.

DTC Conductor's Dismissal Invalid: Charge Of Collecting Fare Without Issuing Tickets Not Established Without Cash Verification : Delhi HC

Case Name : Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram Avtar Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 562

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the failure to supply relevant documents (like the Log Book and past service record) and the absence of cash verification to prove misappropriation vitiates the disciplinary enquiry, entitling the conductor to reinstatement with continuity of service.

Wife Cannot Continue To Occupy Sister-In-Law's Property After Husband Vacates: Delhi High Court

Case Title: S v. M & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 563

The Delhi High Court has held that a woman cannot continue to occupy a property owned by her sister-in-law after her husband, who was residing there as a permissive occupant, vacates the premises.

'Reformative Approach Over Retribution': Delhi High Court Orders Premature Release Of 1993 Bowbazar Blast Life Convict

Case title: Md. Rashid Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 564

The Delhi High Court has ordered the premature release of Md. Rashid Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case, citing reformative approach to punishment.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that Indian criminal jurisprudence has moved away from retributive theory of punishment and has embraced a reformative approach.

Removing Employee From Service In Private Unaided School Void If Passed Without Prior Approval Of Director Of Education : Delhi HC

Case Name : Rekha Sabharwal v. Management of Saai Memorial Girls School & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 565

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the dismissal order is void for violating Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which requires prior approval of the Director of Education before imposing penalty of removal from service on an employee of a private unaided school.

Advocate Entitled To Adjust Unpaid Professional Fees From Compensation Recovered For Client If Such Adjustment Was Agreed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prem Singh v. C.S. Rathore

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 566

The Delhi High Court has held that where a client and advocate had agreed that professional fees would be adjusted from the compensation amount recovered in litigation, the advocate would be entitled to such adjustment if the client failed to prove payment of the agreed fees.

Confirmation Of Accounts Signed By Debtor Sufficient To Sustain Summary Suit Under Order XXXVII CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Goel v. Zavenir Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Connected Matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 567

The Delhi High Court has held that a confirmation of accounts signed by a debtor acknowledging a loan transaction and the applicable interest terms constitutes a written contract and can form the basis of a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Relax 30-Day Notice Period Under Special Marriage Act, Says Personal Hardship Can't Dilute Procedure

Case title: SYED FAYAZUDDIN AND ANR v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court refused to relax 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act for a couple, observing that mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, however genuine it may be cannot be a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance.

Can An Oral Gift Of Immovable Property Confer Ownership Rights? Delhi High Court Answers

Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 569

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that ownership rights in an immovable property cannot be transferred through an oral gift, holding that a valid gift of immovable property can be effected only through a registered instrument executed in accordance with law.

Internal Management Correspondence Cannot Override Terms Of Employee's Signed Salary Restructuring Letter: Delhi High Court

Case title: Anju Dhawan v. M/S. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 570

The Delhi High Court has held that internal management correspondence cannot override the express terms of a signed salary restructuring letter, while dismissing a former employee's appeal seeking recovery of alleged deferred salary and compensation bonus from her erstwhile employer.

Court Can't Direct Third Party/ Garnishee To Deposit Money Without Admitted Or Crystallised Liability: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NBCC India Limited v. GNC Infra LLP & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 571

The Delhi High Court has held that a court cannot direct a third party to deposit money in court in the absence of an admitted or crystallised liability, reiterating that garnishee orders can ordinarily be passed only after a decree is obtained and the debt sought to be attached is established as due and payable.

Tenant Cannot Claim Ownership On Basis Of Unexecuted Agreement To Sell: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Dubey & Anr. v. Nandlal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 572

The Delhi High Court has held that a person who enters a property as a tenant cannot subsequently claim ownership rights on the basis of an unexecuted or unconcluded agreement to sell, particularly when the landlord-tenant relationship stands admitted on record.

Payment Of 'Pagri' Doesn't Make Tenancy Non-Terminable, Landlord Can Still Seek Eviction: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Shyam Lal & Sons v. Smt. Mithlesh Devi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 573

The Delhi High Court has held that payment of pagri (one-time upfront amount to secure long-term tenancy rights) by a tenant does not make a tenancy non-terminable and does not alter the fundamental landlord-tenant relationship.

Delhi High Court Upholds Centre's Temporary Ban Of Telegram App Ahead Of NEET-UG Exam

Case Title: TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 574

The Delhi High Court rejected the petition filed by Telegram challenging the Centre's decision to block the messaging platform till June 22, to prevent misinformation regarding paper-leak ahead of NEET 2026 Re-Examination, which is scheduled on June 21.

Plaintiff With Better Possessory Title Can Recover Property From Occupant Without Better Right: Delhi High Court

Case title: Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 575

The Delhi High Court has held that a plaintiff who establishes a better possessory title over a property is entitled to recover possession from an occupant who fails to prove any superior or lawful right to remain in occupation.

Debarred Bidder Can't Participate In Tender Even If Contract Period Begins After Debarment Ends: Delhi High Court

Case Title: R.K. Jain Infra Projects Private Limited v. NHAI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 576

The Delhi High Court has held that a bidder debarred from participating in tenders cannot be permitted to submit a bid merely because the contract under the tender would commence after the debarment period expires.

Election Commission's Ban On Political Advertisements In Delhi Metro During Model Code Valid: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S EG Communications Pvt Ltd & Ors v. ECI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 577

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) directions prohibiting political advertisements in Delhi Metro trains and stations during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the restriction is reasonable, serves the larger public interest of free and fair elections and does not violate the advertisers' fundamental rights.

Citing Immigration Concerns, Delhi High Court Asks Father To Exercise Visitation Right In US, Not Bring Child To India

Case title: S v. S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 578

The Delhi High Court has modified a Family Court order permitting a minor child residing in the United States to be brought to India for summer visitation, holding that the child's welfare would be better served if the father exercised his visitation rights in the US itself in view of uncertainties surrounding the child's immigration status.

Delinquent Officer Who Skipped Departmental Enquiry Can't Challenge Ex Parte Dismissal: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ms. Mamta Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 579

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF Sub-Inspector, holding that a delinquent employee who deliberately abstains from participating in departmental proceedings cannot subsequently challenge an ex parte punishment order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

Karate Athletes' International Opportunities Can't Be Compromised Due To Governance Disputes: Delhi High Court

Case title: Akshay Mahara v. UoI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 580

The Delhi High Court has observed that Indian karate athletes cannot be made to suffer or lose opportunities to participate in international events because of unresolved governance disputes and the absence of a recognised National Sports Federation (NSF) for the sport.

Contempt Court Can't Test Legality Of Decision Taken In Compliance With Underlying Judicial Order: Delhi High Court

Case title: R.S.C. College v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary And Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 581

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the validity or correctness of an administrative decision taken in compliance with a court's direction cannot be examined in contempt proceedings.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Online Fake News On Judges' London Badminton Event; Gags All From Sharing It

Case : Badminton Association of India v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 582

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to take down online fake news content which claimed that the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court and High Court judges, and Union Law Ministers participated in a Badminton Championship held in London on June 7, 2026, holding that the material was "ex-facie false, malicious and derogatory" to the judiciary and other institutions.

'Child Needs More Time To Acclimatise': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Granting Father Overnight Custody Of Minor

Case title: D v. G

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 583

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Family Court order granting a father overnight custody of his minor son, observing that the child needs more time to acclimatise before staying overnight with his father.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain modified the Family Court's interim custody arrangement after finding that its operative direction granting overnight custody was inconsistent with its own reasoning that the child had never stayed overnight with the father and required more time to adjust.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Show Cause Notice Proposing CAG Audit Of BSES Discoms

Case title: BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr v. GNCTD

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 584

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a show cause notice issued by the Delhi government proposing CAG audit of power distribution companies BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) and BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL).

Justice Tejas Karia held that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is ordinarily not maintainable.

Suspension From Business Dealings Cannot Be Ordered Without Hearing: Delhi High Court Sets Aside NTPC Action Against Solar Company

Case title: Grew Energy Private Limited v. NTPC Renewable Energy Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 585

The Delhi High Court has held that an order suspending a company from participating in future tenders, which is in the nature of debarment, cannot be passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain thus set aside a suspension order issued by NTPC Renewable Energy against solar module manufacturer Grew Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Elections To All India Tennis Association By September 30, Lays Down Timeline For Constitutional Amendments

Case title: AITA v. Somdev Kishore Devvarman & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Tennis Association (AITA) to complete amendments to its Constitution and hold fresh elections by September 30, 2026.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain modified an earlier Single Judge order which allowed the declaration of results for the election held in September 2024.

issued the interim directions while hearing cross-appeals filed by the AITA and former Indian tennis player Somdev Kishore Devvarman against the Single Judge's judgment concerning the governance of the federation.

Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Victim To Terminate 26-Week Pregnancy, AIIMS To Bear Expenses

Title: Minor R (Thr. Her Father R) v. State & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 587

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed a 15 year old rape victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy with over 26 weeks of gestational period, noting that the medical board had given an opinion that the minor is fit to undergo the procedure.

Vacation judge Justice Mini Pushkarna directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to bear the cost of the procedure.

Delay In Deciding Custody Matters Causes Prejudice To Child: Delhi High Court

Case title: G v. M

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 588

The Delhi High Court has observed that delay in deciding child custody disputes itself causes prejudice to the child, while cautioning against a recurring pattern of approaching courts to stall handover of child to the spouse.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a mother's appeal against a Family Court order granting the father interim custody of their minor daughter during the summer vacations.

Principle Of 'Forum Conveniens' Can't Override CAT Rules Giving Primacy To Applicant's Location To Decide Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath And Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 589

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) refusing to transfer a service dispute from its Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi, holding that the principle of forum conveniens cannot override the statutory scheme under the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which accords primacy to the applicant's place of posting.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that under Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an original application is ordinarily to be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arises.

'Such Petitions Burden Our Docket': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against CAT Adjournment Order

Case title: National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 590

The Delhi High Court recently declined to entertain a writ petition filed by the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that merely adjourned a service dispute while continuing interim protection, observing that such petitions unnecessarily burden the Court's docket.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla remarked:

"We fail to understand why, when the Tribunal has specifically listed the matter on 30 June 2026, with a further direction that the matter would not be adjourned on the said date and that the interim relief would only be continued till then, the petitioner has approached this Court."

Challenge To Correctness Of Model Answer Key Maintainable, Not Same As Seeking Re-Evaluation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 591

The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to the correctness of a public exam's official answer key cannot be equated with a plea for re-evaluation of answer sheets, observing that courts are empowered to interfere where the suggested answers in an answer key are patently incorrect.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had dismissed a UPSC Forest Service Examination aspirant's challenge to the official answer key without examining it on merits.