Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 328 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 436NOMINAL INDEXMR. NIDISH GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR v. X & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 328UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. PADMA JAISWAL IAS (AGMUT:2003) & Other Connected Matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 329COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SK 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 330ANIL KUMAR TIWARI ANIRUDHACHARYA v. JOHN DOE ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 328 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 436
NOMINAL INDEX
MR. NIDISH GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR v. X & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 328
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. PADMA JAISWAL IAS (AGMUT:2003) & Other Connected Matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 329
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SK 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 330
ANIL KUMAR TIWARI ANIRUDHACHARYA v. JOHN DOE ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 331
ANUSHKAA ARORA & ORS v. BCD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 332
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 333
HINDU SHAKTI DAL & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 334
ANJU TANWAR v. LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 335
POOJA AS GUARDIAN OF BABY DEVANSHI JAISAWAR v. AADHARSHILA VIDYAPEETH & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 336
SANDEEP @ KALA @ KALE @ SONU @ SINOTHIA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 337
Union of India & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 338
ITGOA & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 339
HAJI MOHD. ALTAF v. STATE & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 340
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 341
MOHANLAL VISWANATHAN NAIR v. JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 342
AJIT KUMAR GOLA v. STATE (GNCTD) AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 343
UOI & Ors. Vs B.N. Chaubey & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 344
Debasis Das Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 345
GNCTD vs Najma & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 346
Kunal Shukla v. Himayani Puri & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 347
Prateek Sharma v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 348
RAJAB ALI v. STATE & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 349
GODREJ AGROVET LTD v. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 350
Shri Shashi Shekhar Prasad v. Lokpal of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 351
Reepak Kansal v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 352
Madan Singh v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 353
Christian Michel James v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 354
Meena Akhilesh Yadav & Anr. v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 355
AMITA SACHDEVA v. UOI & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Aman Kathpal v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 357
Rahul Chauhan v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 358
Dinesh Garg v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 359
Indian Professional Nurses Association v. Union Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 361
Sanjay Bhandari v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 362
NB SUB RAMAKANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 363
Ms. Parul Daware & Anr. v. Regional Passport Officer & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 364
Ambika Gupta v. CPIO LIC 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 365
Uma Shankar Sharma v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 366
SAROJ (WIDOW OF KHEMCHAND) v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 367
Ranjit Kaur v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 368
Perch A Unit of Sunrise F and B Restaurant Pvt Ltd v. NDMC & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 369
NANDU @ RAM KISHORE v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 370
JASPREET KAUR v. JAGJEET SINGH & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 371
RISHABH GEHLOT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 372
BALBIR CHAND TIWARI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS and other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 373
ONKAR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 374
SUMIT v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 375
Gayassudin v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Mujabil v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 377
VK Sood PIL JV v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 378
UA v. IPA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 379
Manish Kumar Gupta v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Justice on Trial v. BBC 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Ms X v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 382
MAHESH KUMAR YADAV v. MANISH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 383
TEHSIN RAZA RAFIULLAH SHAIKH ALIS BAPU v. State & other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 384
Rohit v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 385
CHINMOYJIT SEN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 386
DK v. N 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 387
Mohd Aman Rana v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 388
HARMEET SINGH v. STATE OF GNCT DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 389
Sudarshan v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 390
KIRTI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 391
Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Ors. v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 392
X & Anr v. X CORP AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 393
ANISH ARUN & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 394
CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Shri Mohkam Singh v. Delhi Jal Board 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 396
CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 397
Rajkiran Yadav v. State Bank Of India Through Its Chief General Manager And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Gur Kaur Minor & Ors. v. Union Of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 399
ALLU ARJUN v. FRANKLY RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Gaurav Bhardwaj v. State NCT of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Rihan Khan @ Dulare v. State NCT of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 402
Md. Karimunnisa v. National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Chairman & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 403
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA ADV. AND ORS and other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 404
NG Dev v. State & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 405
J L Wali & Others v. Union Of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 406
M/S Kaushik Medical Store v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 407
Syeed Asima Ali v. Hockey India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 409
Vikram Kumar Jha v. Union Of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 410
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 411
Ashok Kumar v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 412
NDMC v. Bharat Hotels Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 413
VAIBHAV SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 414
Gurpreet Kaur Maini v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 415
AMAR JAIN AND ANR v. ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD (RAPIDO) AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 416
WINNER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 417
LAXMI DEVI AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 418
State v. Ishrat Jahan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 419
MOHD.SAQUIB ANSARI v. STATE OF DELHI & Other Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 420
RM v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 421
RS v. DU 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 422
Yogender Chandolia v. Vishesh Ravi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 423
Sanjay v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 424
Bina Modi v. State & Anr and other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 425
Lawrence Bishnoi v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 426
Anil Dhupar v. Chintan N Parikh & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 427
Const. Satish Kumar v. State Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428
Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 429
South Asian Forum For People Against Terror v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 430
Rajesh Choudhary v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 431
Sandeep alias Sandy v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 432
M/S Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 433
JSM & Anr v. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 434
MS. SAMAIRA KAPUR & ANR v. MRS. PRIYA KAPUR & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 435
BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 436
Title: MR. NIDISH GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR v. X & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 328
The Delhi High Court pulled up various media platforms including a journalist and actress Richa Chadha for their social media posts labelling a man a “molester” over allegations of sexual harassment arising out of an in-flight incident.
Justice Vikas Mahajan said that the narratives set by the media houses and digital platforms clearly breached the contours of the FIR, and that the publications did not merely report the allegations in the FIR but they prematurely adjudicate the matter.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. PADMA JAISWAL IAS (AGMUT:2003) & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 329
The Delhi High Court held that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), acting as a delegatee of the Joint Cadre Authority (JCA), is legally competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalty upon IAS officers borne on the AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories) cadre.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 330
The Delhi High Court recently charges of criminal contempt against a woman advocate for allegedly making scandalous allegations against a judicial officer, both in court and through a social media post on LinkedIn.
Title: ANIL KUMAR TIWARI ANIRUDHACHARYA v. JOHN DOE ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 331
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of spiritual preacher Aniruddhacharya, restraining unauthorised use of his persona through AI-generated content, deepfakes and meme-based material across digital platforms.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the john doe order while hearing a suit filed by the preacher, who alleged large-scale misuse of his identity, voice, likeness and teachings by various defendants, including unknown entities.
Title: ANUSHKAA ARORA & ORS v. BCD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court clarified that the results of Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections 2026, shall be declared only after the reconciliation of votes and ballots is concluded.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 333
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to continue and regularly review the security arrangements put in place in all the district courts in the national capital in consultation with the respective Principal District & Sessions Judges.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre closed a suo motu case initiated over an incident where a lawyer was allegedly beaten up by opposing counsel and other individuals inside a Tis Hazari court courtroom on February 07.
Title: HINDU SHAKTI DAL & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 334
The Delhi High Court ordered immediate take down and removal of a controversial song sung by singers Honey Singh and Badshah from 2000s titled “Volume 1” which was released under the name of “Mafia Mundeer” group.
Associate Of Lawyer Who Was Allotted Chamber Cannot Claim Vested Right To Use It : Delhi High Court
Title: ANJU TANWAR v. LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court has observed that an advocate using a chamber merely as an associate of the original allottee does not acquire any vested right over the said premises being “mere permissive user.”
Title: POOJA AS GUARDIAN OF BABY DEVANSHI JAISAWAR v. AADHARSHILA VIDYAPEETH & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 336
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to education does not translate to the right to select a particular school of choice once an academic year ends, in the absence of any interim protection.
Title: SANDEEP @ KALA @ KALE @ SONU @ SINOTHIA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 337
The Delhi High Court has observed that bail conditions cannot extend to invasion of privacy of the family members of an accused or a convict.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani set aside conditions that required police to monitor and collect personal data of wife of an accused during his interim bail.
June 30 Retirement No Bar To July 1 Annual Increment- Delhi High Court
Case Name : Union of India & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 338
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a government employee retiring on 30 June is entitled to increment due on 1 July, as the increment is earned for the completed year of service preceding retirement and cannot be denied merely because it becomes payable after retirement.
Case Name : ITGOA & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 339
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that pay parity cannot be claimed solely on basis of historical parity, common recruitment, or similar designation and overlap in functional duties, when the Pay Commission has maintained a distinction between different service cadres i.e. Secretariat and non-Secretariat.
Title: HAJI MOHD. ALTAF v. STATE & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has upheld conviction of a lawyer and a cop for extortion and falsely implicating a man, now deceased, in a false gang rape case who was later on beaten up and tortured in police custody.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha said that a strong message must be sent to the people occupying positions like a lawyer or a police officer that Courts would not treat such crimes lightly or turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of their position and authority.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of identifiable child victims or conclusive proof of their age cannot be a ground to discharge accused persons under POCSO Act in cases involving child sexual abuse material (CSEM).
Title: MOHANLAL VISWANATHAN NAIR v. JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of veteran Malayalam actor Mohanlal.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained multiple entities, including unknown entities, from unauthorized commercial exploitation of his personality attributes, including through AI-generated content.
Legal Research, Understanding Impugned Order No Ground To Condone Delay: Delhi High Court
Title: AJIT KUMAR GOLA v. STATE (GNCTD) AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court has held that conducting legal research or understanding the impugned order cannot be a ground for condoning the delay.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that if such a ground were to be accepted as a sufficient explanation, it would render the law of limitation and the principles of delay and laches largely otiose.
Combatised BSF Person Retire At 57, Can't Claim Civilian Retirement Age Of 60 - Delhi High Court
Case Name : UOI & Ors. Vs B.N. Chaubey & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 344
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a re-employed ex-serviceman appointed to a combatised post in the Border Security Force, who enjoys the benefits of that combatised cadre, is governed by the BSF's statutory superannuation age of 57 years and not by the 60-year retirement age applicable to civilian posts.
CPF Option Exercised Can't Be Reversed To Claim Pension Under CCS Rules: Delhi HC
Title: Debasis Das Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 345
A Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an employee who has exercised an option to remain under the CPF scheme cannot later claim pension benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, as deemed conversion applies only where no option was exercised.
Case Title: GNCTD vs Najma & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court set aside a single judge directive making promises extended by former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for payment of rent on behalf of poor tenants in 2020 “legally enforceable.”
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla modified the single judge ruling and rejected the prayer in the petition seeking a direction to hold statement made by Kejriwal in the press conference as an assurance, by calling it “misconceived.”
Title: Kunal Shukla v. Himayani Puri & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 347
The Delhi High Court asked the single judge to expeditiously decide an application filed by Kunal Shukla, a Raipur based social activist, seeking stay or vacation of the injunction order directing him to take down posts linking Himayani Puri, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's daughter, to American financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar has directed the single judge to hear both the sides and decide the application as expeditiously as possible.
Delhi High Court Directs Immediate Restoration Of X Accounts 'Dr Nimo Yadav', 'Nehr Who'
Case Title: Prateek Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 348
The Delhi High Court ordered immediate restoration of the parody account “Dr. Nimo Yadav”, operated by petitioner Prateek Sharma on X.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while hearing a plea filed by Prateek Sharma against blocking of his parody account “Dr. Nimo Yadav”.
The court also passed similar direction with respect to a petition filed by Kumar Nayan, who operates the account Nehr Who— one of the 12 X accounts blocked under MeiTY's directives.
Title: RAJAB ALI v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court has directed the premature release of a life convict who had undergone over 22 years of actual imprisonment, holding that repeated rejection of remission by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) on the sole ground of the “heinousness” of the offence was arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of reformative justice.
Title: GODREJ AGROVET LTD v. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 350
The Delhi High Court held that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) cannot regulate animal or cattle feed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the legislation is confined to food meant for human consumption.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia allowed a plea filed by Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and struck down Note (c) appended to Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, as amended in 2021.
Case title: Shri Shashi Shekhar Prasad v. Lokpal of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 351
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order of the Lokpal of India directing CBI probe against a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officer, holding that such a decision cannot be taken without recording clear reasons, especially when a prior inquiry has exonerated the officer.
Case title: Reepak Kansal v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 352
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a batch of petitions concerning the banning of WhatsApp accounts, directing the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that an efficacious grievance redressal mechanism is available under Rule 3A of the IT Rules, which provides for an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.
Case title: Madan Singh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 353
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in a rape case, while underscoring how financial hardships can render migrant women particularly vulnerable to exploitation.
A single judge bench of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav remarked, “Constraints and restrictions so also the facilities have immense potential to change the life drastically. The financial constraints coupled with the lack of proper education, skills and training brought the victim herein, as many other such individuals land up in the big metropolitan cities, as this metropolis…Somehow, the victim could not save herself and she was raped.”
AgustaWestland Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Christian Michel's Plea For Release From Jail
Title: Christian Michel James v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel, challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, executed back in the year 1999.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja also upheld a trial court order rejecting his application seeking release from prison on the ground that he had undergone the maximum punishment of seven years.
Case title: Meena Akhilesh Yadav & Anr. v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, holding that their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied merely because they are already married to other individuals.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed,
“Since the petitioners are both Indian national citizens, they are well and truly entitled to the protection as available to them in the form of the guarantees and fundamental right(s), enshrined under Article(s) 19 and 21 of the Constitution. For this, the status of the citizens, whether they are (un)married or are in a Live-In relationship, is not a germane factor for consideration “
Title: AMITA SACHDEVA v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 356
The Delhi High Court called for action on posts made by journalist Rana Ayyub on 'X' (formerly Twitter) platform allegedly insulting Hindu deities and spreading anti-India sentiment.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a plea filed by Amita Sachdeva seeking deletion of the tweets alleging that they are derogatory, inflammatory and communally sensitive.
Child's Welfare Paramount, Not Foreign Court Orders: Delhi High Court Dismisses Cross-Custody Pleas
Case title: Aman Kathpal v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross petitions filed by estranged parents seeking custody of their US-born daughter, reiterating that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that orders of foreign courts are not conclusive.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the Court while giving adequate importance, acknowledgment and respect to the orders passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction albeit of a foreign country, at the same time, gives paramountcy to the welfare of the child.”
Case title: Rahul Chauhan v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court has transferred the investigation into an alleged custodial death at Police Station Pul Prahladpur to the Crime Branch, directing that the probe be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) under the supervision of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime).
Delhi High Court Acquits Govt Engineers Accused Of Taking ₹900 Bribe In 1991
Case title: Dinesh Garg v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has acquitted two former engineers of the Flood Control Department accused of accepting a bribe of ₹900 each in 1991, bringing to an end their 35-year-old long legal battle under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Allowing the appeals filed by the accused, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside the trial court's 2002 conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational requirement of “demand” of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Case title: Indian Professional Nurses Association v. Union Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court has asked the Indian Nursing Council to consider establishing a grievance redressal mechanism for nurses, while disposing of a public interest litigation highlighting the absence of an effective system to address complaints within the profession.
Part Cause Of Action Arises Where Authority Passes Order: Delhi High Court Restores Plea Against PNB
Case title: Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank And Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The Delhi High Court has held that a part of the cause of action arises at the place where the impugned order is passed, restoring a writ petition filed against Punjab National Bank (PNB) after setting aside a Single Judge's order that had declined to entertain it on jurisdictional grounds.
Title: Sanjay Bhandari v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari challenging a trial court order declaring him as a “fugitive economic offender”.
“Appeal dismissed,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said while pronouncing the verdict.
Title: NB SUB RAMAKANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has closed a plea filed by a Junior Commissioned Officer challenging denial of service extension, after the Army acknowledged “procedural lapses” in the screening process and agreed to conduct a fresh firing test.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing a plea by Nai. Subedar Ramakant Singh, who had contested his non-recommendation for extension of service on the ground that he had not participated in the firing tests purportedly conducted in Jammu & Kashmir.
Delhi High Court Directs Reissue Of Minor's Passport Without Father's Name After He Gave Up Custody
Case title: Ms. Parul Daware & Anr. v. Regional Passport Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has directed the reissue of a minor's passport without mentioning her father's name, noting that the father had relinquished all custodial and visitation rights pursuant to a court-approved settlement.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while allowing a plea filed by a mother seeking reissuance of her minor daughter's passport without including the father's name.
Case title: Ambika Gupta v. CPIO LIC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has held that while an individual can seek details of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) policies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act without furnishing the policy number, such requests must be supported by basic identifying particulars to enable retrieval of information.
Loss Of Confidence In Employees Handling Funds Justifies Termination: Delhi High Court
Case title: Uma Shankar Sharma v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court has held that the doctrine of “loss of confidence” assumes heightened significance in cases involving employees entrusted with financial responsibilities, holding that once such trust is shaken due to proven misconduct, the employer cannot be compelled to continue the relationship.
Title: SAROJ (WIDOW OF KHEMCHAND) v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court has permitted the widening of a public road in Shalimar Bagh, holding the interest of private occupants encroaching upon public land must yield to the broader public interest.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain ruled that the proposed 30-metre road expansion is necessary for ensuring access to essential services such as hospitals, schools, and emergency vehicles.
Case title: Ranjit Kaur v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere ill-treatment of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless there is a clear and specific intent to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed with the intent to humiliate the victim, specifically on account of her caste identity. It is not sufficient that the Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that she was subjected to ill-treatment or a physical altercation.”
Title: Perch A Unit of Sunrise F and B Restaurant Pvt Ltd v. NDMC & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 369
Granting relief to various restaurants in city's Khan Market, the Delhi High Court said that the outlets shall not be denied operation only on account of lack of fire NOC, as long as they maintain occupation of less than 50 guests at a given point of time.
Calling the area “shaan of Delhi”, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav took on record an undertaking given by the restaurants that they will abide by any other possible mechanism to ensure safety measures as may be directed by the civic authorities.
Delhi High Court Flags Delays In Compliance Of Parole Orders, Directs SOP To Address Bottlenecks
Title: NANDU @ RAM KISHORE v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 370
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over recurring delays in compliance with judicial directions in parole matters, while directing Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home) to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) on the issue.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the order while granting four weeks' parole to a convict whose elder brother had passed away.
Unfavourable Order No Ground To Allege Bias Against Judge, Seek Case Transfer: Delhi High Court
Title: JASPREET KAUR v. JAGJEET SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere passing of an unfavourable order cannot, by itself, be a ground to allege prejudice and bias against a judge and seek transfer of the case.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking transfer of a criminal matrimonial case from a Mahila Court to another court on allegations of bias against the judge.
Title: RISHABH GEHLOT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court ordered strict compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding release of undertrial prisoners who have completed one-third or one-half of their maximum sentence.
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed that a copy of the order be circulated to Principal District & Sessions Judges, Director General (Prisons), Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (D
Title: BALBIR CHAND TIWARI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 373
The Delhi High Court has held that a case cannot be transferred depending upon a “hypersensitive” litigant's imaginary apprehension of bias who jumped to unwarranted conclusion.
Delhi High Court Declines Plea For Daily Grievance Hearing By Union Ministers Via Video Conferencing
Title: ONKAR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Union Government to formulate a policy mandating all Union Ministers to interact with citizens and hear their grievances for at least two hours daily through video conferencing.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the relief sought squarely falls within the executive domain and cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Title: SUMIT v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 375
Emphasising the grave and irreversible impact of circulating obscene content online, the Delhi High Court has refused bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor and uploading her explicit photographs and videos on social media platforms.
Case title: Gayassudin v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court has held that marriage between an accused and the prosecutrix after she attains majority cannot absolve the accused of criminal liability for acts of rape allegedly committed when she was a minor.
Case title: Mujabil v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a drugs case, observing that cannabis leaves and stalks cannot be treated as “ganja” for the purpose of determining commercial quantity contraband, thereby raising doubt over whether the alleged recovery fell within the stringent bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case title: VK Sood PIL JV v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench an issue concerning the filing of written statements under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Justice Subramonium Prasad has framed the following question for reference:
“whether the filing of a Written Statement within the statutory period prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, but without being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, renders such filing non-est in law or whether the absence of such affidavit constitutes a curable defect, permitting the Written Statement to be taken on record upon subsequent compliance of filing an affidavit of admission/denial of documents.”
Case title: UA v. IPA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The Delhi High Court has held that no adverse inference can be drawn against a party for refusing to provide a handwriting sample, if the Court has not disclosed that such sample is being sought for comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case title: Manish Kumar Gupta v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi government to initiate steps for framing appropriate rules and regulations to prevent persons with criminal antecedents from holding managerial positions in cooperative societies.
Title: Justice on Trial v. BBC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 381
The Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on a Gujarat-based NGO for seeking repeated adjournments in its defamation suit against British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) over its documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Justice Mini Pushkarna fined NGO 'Justice On Trial', noting that despite final opportunity granted in December last year, the NGO sought an accommodation even today citing engagement of an arguing counsel.
Delhi High Court Permits Sperm Retrieval Of Soldier In Coma, Holds Prior IVF Consent Sufficient
Title: Ms X v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has permitted the extraction and cryopreservation of sperm of an Indian Army soldier in a persistent vegetative state, holding that his prior consent to undergo IVF treatment with his wife constituted valid consent under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Title: MAHESH KUMAR YADAV v. MANISH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 383
The Delhi High Court has expressed displeasure with the Delhi Government over its failure to constitute the Grievance Redressal and Dispute Resolution Committee under the Streets Vendors Act, despite earlier directions passed in 2024.
Title: TEHSIN RAZA RAFIULLAH SHAIKH ALIS BAPU v. State & other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court refused to stay trial court proceedings against two men accused of attacking Chief Minister Rekha Gupta at her Civil Lines residence during a public hearing in August last year.
Case title: Rohit v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 385
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot rely on the plea that he was “not legally married” but only in a live-in relationship with another woman to rebut allegations of false promise of marriage.
Title: CHINMOYJIT SEN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Lokpal of India must form a prima facie opinion regarding the existence of a case before issuing a show-cause notice following a preliminary inquiry report.
Case title: DK v. N
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 387
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a husband cannot evade obligation to pay maintenance by claiming a low income while withholding material details about his financial status.
Case title: Mohd Aman Rana v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has clarified that an accused facing charges under rape and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82 CrPC, as such offences do not fall within the category specified under Section 82(4).
Title: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE OF GNCT DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court laid down various principles for quashing of cases registered under the POCSO Act where the de-juré victim denies actual harm to her.
Citing Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that while the law treats a minor as a victim (de-juré victim), Courts must assess whether any actual (de-facto) victim exists before allowing prosecution to continue.
Case title: Sudarshan v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot be convicted for a completed offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act if the charge framed against him was only for an attempt to commit the offence.
Title: KIRTI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has observed that consenting adults who take “cerebral vow of marriage” are entitled to live with liberty and dignity and deserve protection from threats by their family.
Case title: Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Ors. v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has held that the custody of animals cannot be treated on par with inanimate property, emphasising that the emotional bond between pets and their caregivers must be given due consideration while deciding such disputes.
Title: X & Anr v. X CORP AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order restraining the circulation of allegedly defamatory and communally provocative social media posts against two advocates, observing that such material affects their dignity and personal lives.
Title: ANISH ARUN & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking age relaxation and additional attempts for candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in direct recruitments and employment under the Central Government.
Title: CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by retired personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), holding that those who had already crossed the age of 60 years as on January 31, 2019 are not entitled to consequential pensionary benefits arising from the enhancement of retirement age.
Break In Service Bars Regularisation Claim Of Daily Wager: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal
Case title: Shri Mohkam Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a daily wage worker seeking regularisation, holding that a break in service disentitles a workman from claiming parity with others who were regularised under an existing scheme.
Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court rejected the applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that merely because her children are central government panel counsel, it cannot be presumed that she carries any bias against Kejriwal.
Case title: Rajkiran Yadav v. State Bank Of India Through Its Chief General Manager And Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a bank guard for suppressing information about a pending criminal case at the time of recruitment, observing that the nature of the post requires strict and truthful disclosure of antecedents.
CARA Must Secure Foreign Clearances For Inter-Country Adoption Before Issuing NOC: Delhi High Court
Case title: Gur Kaur Minor & Ors. v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) is obligated to secure necessary foreign clearances in inter-country adoption cases and cannot discharge its duty by merely issuing a “support letter” instead of a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Title: ALLU ARJUN v. FRANKLY RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The Delhi High Court has passed an ex parte ad-interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Allu Arjun, restraining multiple entities from unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality, including misuse through artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes and sale of infringing merchandise.
Case title: Gaurav Bhardwaj v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Road Transport Authority (RTA) clerk accused of being part of a pan-India syndicate involved in fraudulent vehicle registrations using fake documents and tampered chassis numbers.
Case title: Rihan Khan @ Dulare v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court has granted 15 days' interim bail to an accused in a dowry death case to enable him to secure his daughter's school admission.
Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the plea filed by the accused, Rihan Khan @ Dulare, who is facing charges under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B, 313, and 511 of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case title: Md. Karimunnisa v. National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has called upon the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to put in place an automated, technology-driven monitoring system to track toll collections in real time and promptly identify “windfall gain” situations, stressing the need to prevent loss to the public exchequer.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA ADV. AND ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has observed that criticism aimed at judges must be responsible and backed by cogent evidence as they cannot defend themselves publicly when faced with attacks, especially on a social media platform.
Case title: NG Dev v. State & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that financial transactions, particularly those involving large sums, must be supported by cogent evidence and cannot rest solely on claims of trust between parties.
Case title: J L Wali & Others v. Union Of India & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by contractors who migrated from Jammu & Kashmir during the late 1980s unrest, seeking payment of dues for works allegedly executed prior to their displacement.
Case title: M/S Kaushik Medical Store v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere existence of subsisting contracts does not bar the State from initiating a fresh tender process for a future period.
The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan added that merely because the Petitioner-contractor apprehended that the fresh tender may “overlap” contractual arrangements, would not be grounds to entertain a writ petition.
Case title: Syeed Asima Ali v. Hockey India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has held officials of Hockey India guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its directions to provide a duly elected Executive Board member access to meetings.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Over LPG Shortage, Says Issue Lies In Executive Domain
Title: Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 409
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL over acute shortage of LPG in the national capital, observing that the issue lies completely in realm of the Executive.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that no such mandamus can be issued when the Government of India has already and is taking action to meet the exigencies.
Case title: Vikram Kumar Jha v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court has upheld the requirement of possessing a valid Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving licence for male candidates seeking appointment as Sub-Inspectors (SI) in Delhi Police, ruling that the absence of a similar requirement for female candidates does not amount to discrimination.
Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by victim of Unnao rape case to lead further evidence against former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the case.
Case title: Ashok Kumar v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to four accused persons in a ₹22 crore “digital arrest” cyber fraud case involving a senior citizen, observing that such offences have a massive societal impact and require a strict approach.
Case title: NDMC v. Bharat Hotels Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals filed by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and restored a demand of over ₹1,063 crore raised against Bharat Hotels Ltd. in a long-standing licence fee dispute, observing that any transaction involving scarce public land that results in loss of public revenue cannot be permitted to burden taxpayers.
Title: VAIBHAV SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court directed taken down of social media posts containing videos of court proceedings wherein AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal and others had sought recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Case title: Gurpreet Kaur Maini v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no legal embargo under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) on granting “total support” to a person with disability requiring such assistance, and that the absence of framed rules cannot be a ground to refuse exercise of statutory powers.
Delhi High Court Directs Rapido To Ensure Continued Accessibility For Visually Impaired Users
Title: AMAR JAIN AND ANR v. ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD (RAPIDO) AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has directed Indian ride-hailing service Rapido to ensure that its application continues to be 'disabled friendly' for its users in all respects, for as long as it remains in operation.
Title: WINNER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 417
The Delhi High Court set aside debarment of a contractor by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in connection with structural defects in the Signature View Apartments project, holding that the decision-making process was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.
Uttam Nagar Holi Violence: Delhi High Court Grants Police Protection To Deceased's Family
Title: LAXMI DEVI AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has ordered police protection for the family members of 27-year old Tarun Butolia, who died in a violent clash during Holi celebrations at Uttam Nagar this year.
Justice Girish Kathpalia requested the Additional DCP to direct the concerned SHO to provide his personal mobile phone number to the family so that they may contact him at the time of distress.
Case Title: State v. Ishrat Jahan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 419
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Police challenging the bail granted to former Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan in FIR 59/2020 which alleges a larger conspiracy in the Delhi Riots that happened in 2020.
Title: MOHD.SAQUIB ANSARI v. STATE OF DELHI & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The Delhi High Court denied bail to two men accused in a UAPA case, observing that they were in touch with Indian Mujahideen not only in India but also in Pakistan and spread jihadi material.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that despite being in custody for almost 12 years, they were not entitled to be released as there existed a continuing threat that they were likely to indulge in similar behaviour if granted bail.
Case title: RM v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and 15-years rigorous sentence of a man for raping his minor stepdaughters, noting that minor contradictions in prosecutirx testimony do not affect the prosecution case.
Case title: RS v. DU
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court has held that even though the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) does not expressly provide for suspension, an employer retains the inherent power to suspend an employee facing inquiry under the Act.
Case title: Yogender Chandolia v. Vishesh Ravi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The Delhi High Court has held that a false declaration regarding one's own educational qualification in the nomination affidavit does not amount to a “corrupt practice” under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Case title: Sanjay v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to an advocate who is in judicial custody in a cheating case investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police, to enable him to arrange funds for the school admission of his children.
Title: Bina Modi v. State & Anr and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court quashed a case registered against industrialist Bina Modi and senior lawyer Lalit Bhasin in connection with an alleged assault of former Godfrey Philips India (GPI) executive director Samir Modi during a board meeting in 2024.
Title: Lawrence Bishnoi v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The Delhi High Court closed a petition filed against the release of upcoming web series “Lawrence of Punjab” on OTT platform ZEE5, owned by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav disposed of the plea filed by gangster Lawrence Bishnoi opposing the release, after Zee5 said that it is in the process of challenging the advisories issued by the Union Government asking it not to release the show.
Case title: Anil Dhupar v. Chintan N Parikh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 427
The Delhi High Court has allowed the declaration of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) election results held in September 2024, permitting the newly elected body to function as an interim arrangement to manage the day-to-day affairs of the federation, while directing that fresh elections be conducted in accordance with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the Sports Governance Rules, 2026.
Delhi High Court Upholds Police Constable's Conviction For Accepting ₹1,000 Bribe 32 Years Ago
Case title: Const. Satish Kumar v. State Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹1,000 in 1994, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Jailed MP Engineer Rashid To Visit Ailing Father
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court granted one weeks' interim bail to jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to visit his ailing father.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Madhu Jain allowed Rashid to either remain in the hospital or residence where his father is located, in presence of atleast two police officials in plain clothes.
Title: South Asian Forum For People Against Terror v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 430
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking compensation and public employment benefits to the families and kin of victims killed in terror attacks in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the prayers made fall in the realm of policy decision and cannot be entertained in a writ petition.
Case title: Rajesh Choudhary v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The Delhi High Court has held that mere receipt of money by a public servant, even if unexplained, cannot be treated as bribery in the absence of a clear evidentiary link between the payment and any unlawful official favour.
Case title: Sandeep alias Sandy v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no absolute prohibition on the simultaneous grant of parole or furlough to co-convicts, holding that such release can be permitted in appropriate cases subject to stricter scrutiny by the competent authority.
Case title: M/S Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with multiple tender processes initiated by the Directorate of Education for procurement of sports and outdoor gym equipment, holding that a belated challenge by non-participating bidders is not maintainable.
Case title: JSM & Anr v. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production of his minor son currently residing in the United States with his ex-wife.
Case Title: MS. SAMAIRA KAPUR & ANR v. MRS. PRIYA KAPUR & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court restrained Priya Kapur, wife of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, from dissipating the assets left behind by him, while granting interim relief to Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor's children- Samaira Kapur and her brother in their suit seeking a share in their late father's personal assets.
Title: BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 436
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order directing take down of deepfake content misusing the personality rights of YouTuber Bhuvan Bam.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing a suit filed by Bam against various entities, including john does, e-commerce platforms and social media intermediaries.