Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2026 [Citations 01 - 324]
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 324NOMINAL INDEXSandeepa Virk v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 1Nippon Steel Corporation v. The Controller Of Patents 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 2Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi M/S TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 3U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 4TENZIN YOUTEN & ANR v. THE STATE...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 324
NOMINAL INDEX
Sandeepa Virk v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 1
Nippon Steel Corporation v. The Controller Of Patents 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 2
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi M/S TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 3
U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 4
TENZIN YOUTEN & ANR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 5
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Triveni v. Home Department Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 7
PROFESSOR ALKA ACHARYA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 8
YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY & ANR v. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 9
MR KONIDALA PAWAN KALYAN v. ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 10
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Controller General Of Patents 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 11
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 12
Rajvaidya Shital Prasad And Sons v. Karna Goomar And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 13
MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 14
DHEERAJ ARORA v. PARINEY KHANNA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 15
ANUSHA GUPTA & ANR v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 16
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc & Ors v. animesugez.to & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 17
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. KAMAL KISHORE AGGARWAL 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 18
Emitec Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie mbH v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Arn 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 19
VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS v. THE RETURNING OFFICER NDBA ELECTIONS, 2025 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips NV 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 21
DHARMENDRA KUMAR v. STATE 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 22
Sana Herbals Private Limited v. Mohsin Dehlvi & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 23
Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 24
Ex-Servicemen Welfare Union v. Union Of India And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Ravinder Singh Gandoak v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Manoj Mishra v. State (and connected matter) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 27
Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v National Highway Authority of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 28
Sh. Vimal Ghai v. Sh. M. P. Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 29
Jai Mangal Rai v. UoI (and batch) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 30
CBI v. Kukwant Rai 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 31
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors v. Aquestia Limited & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 32
Avinash Singh v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 33
X v. State & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 34
Anuradha @ Chiku v. State (Nct Of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 35
China Trust Commercial Bank v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 36
Ram Kuber v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 37
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 38
DUSHYANT KUMAR GAUTAM v. URMILA SANA WAR & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 39
Roseland Buildtech Private Limited v. Vihaan 43 Reality Private Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 40
Smt Sudha Sharma v. State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 41
Renuka Jain v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 42
Veena Arora v. Commissioner Income Tax - 12 Delhi & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 43
UMESH KUMAR & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 44
Arun Kumar Bagla v. M/S SCJ Plastics Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 45
UoI v. Naresh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 46
Vedanta Limited v. Union of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 47
Dr Manoj Khanna v. Income Tax Office 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 48
Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union Of India Through Secretary (R) And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 49
Satish Kumar Gupta v. Sushil Kumar Loomba 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 50
SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Sumeet Suri v State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 52
JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 53
Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 54
Shree Krishna Steel Traders Through Proprietor Nikhil Sharma vs. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 55
GE Energy Parts Inc v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. (and connected matter) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 56
Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann v. State Nct Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 57
Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole v. The State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 58
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-1 v. Borgwarner Emissions Systems India Private Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 59
HIND SAMRAJYA PARTY v. UOI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 60
Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST Division Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate (MCIE) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 61
Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited v. Akhil Saxena & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 62
Koshaliya Devi Rastogi v. Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi And Anr (and batch) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Shri Satya Narain, Since Deceased Through LRs v. Chairman Delhi Development Authority Through Its Chairman & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 64
JC v. BS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 65
Sh. Sanket Behari Mittal v. Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 66
HARSHIT AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 67
MCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 69
BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 70
Sandeep Sethi & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi Deceased Through Lrs 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 71
MCD v. M/S Ram Niwas Goel 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 72
ABHIMANYU SINGH AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Union Of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 74
Mr Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Mrs Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. Union Of India Through Its Standing Counsel & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 75
First Generation Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 76
Court on its own motion v. State & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 77
P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 78
JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 79
HEMANT JAIN & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 80
Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81
SANGITA RAI v. NEW DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 82
PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 83
Somnath Bharti v. Shri Satish Upadhyay 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 84
Prannoy Roy v. Commissioner of Income Tax & other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 85
Babita Chopra v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 86
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 87
Vikas Pawha v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 88
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ex. Const. Arvind Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 89
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. High Court & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 90
DEVYANI SINGH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 91
MS. MUSKAAN AAMIR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 92
Sunil Kumar Tiwari And Ors. v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 93
RAM SWAROOP GUPTA & ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 94
HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 95
UoI v. 627281 EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 96
DRY v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 97
National Institute Of Tuberculosis And Respiratory Diseases v. Ms. Shweta & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 98
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Shri Darshan Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 99
DR AVADESH KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 100
PHYSICSWALLAH LIMITED v. NIKHIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 101
MAHUA MOITRA v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 102
JUSTICE FOR ALL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 103
Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 104
Narender Singh v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 105
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 106
MAHILA HAWKER WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHAHDRA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Karan Singh v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 108
Harsh v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 109
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 110
SSB v. DBC 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 111
NARENDRA SHARMA V/s GNCTD & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 112
ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 113
Aduram v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 114
CHANDANI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) V/s GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 115
Sarita Tiwari v. M/S Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 116
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 117
Baldev Singh v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
VIJAY GUPTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 119
CBI v. I M QUDDUSI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 120
MANJEET v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION (IOA) AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Jamia Millia Islamia v. Roshan Ara & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 122
State v. Sunil @ Pahalwan & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Haazari Singh Rawat & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 124
KUSUM SEHGAL v. HERITAGE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE & ORS & Other Connected Matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 125
NA Sebastian & Anr v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 126
BHASKAR YADAV v. ED & Other Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 127
MRS. AJIT INDER SINGH v. MR. SIMRANJIT SINGH GREWAL & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 128
Shivam v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 129
ASIAN PATENT ATTONRNEYS ASSOCIATION (INDIAN GROUP) v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 130
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 131
Rahul Singh Tolia v. Union Of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 132
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 133
Okoli Anayo Franklin v. The State NCT Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Meet Bhadresh Shah v. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 135
HARPREET SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 137
ALL INDIA PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 138
YANGCHEN DRAKMARGYAPON v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 139
Manoj Kumar v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140
SONU @ SONU SINGH @ GOPAL v. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 141
Amit Gulia v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 142
VARUN KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (SHO RAJINDER NAGAR) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 143
Pramod @ Parmal v. State (Nct Of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 144
VICKY KASHYAP v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 145
Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) And Anr v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 146
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 147
CAG v. Manoj Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 148
Great Legislation Movement India Trust v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 149
Amardeep Sharma v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 150
Mr Raj Kumar Gupta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Kanwarji Raj Kumar v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 151
SAHIL ARSH v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 152
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 153
HANUMANT LAL PATEL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 154
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 155
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 156
DEVYANSHU SURYAVANSHI & ORS v. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR & Other Connected Matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 157
PRABHROOP KAUR KAPOOR & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 158
SHLOK BHARDWAJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 159
LAXMI DEVI & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 160
UNION OF INDIA v. INDER 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 161
SURESH SHARMA v. KRISHAN LAL THUKRAL 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 162
PARVEEN TANEJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 163
AYUSHMAN INITIATIVE FOR CHILD RIGHTS & ANR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 164
PRERNA GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 165
MALABAR GOLD AND DIAMOND LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 166
SURJEET KUMAR @ KALU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 167
AMAN PRATAP SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 168
Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 169
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 171
THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 172
GBL Chemicals Limited & Ors. v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 173
Mahender Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Rohit Lamba & Anr. v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 176
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 177
VIKAS PUNDHIR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 178
SH. SUNIL KUMAR v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 179
DR. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & Other Connected Matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 180
ANUP KUMAR RAMPAL v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH JOINT COMMISSIONER 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 181
SARVESH SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 182
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.K. Nijhawan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 183
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 184
M/S CSAT System (P) Ltd v. Appellant Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 185
VIKAS YADAV v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 186
Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 187
MARIA RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 188
Rohit Gagerna v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Aman@ Prince @ Bhura v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 190
Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti v. AIIMS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 191
Arvind Kejriwal v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 192
Mohan @ Akkar v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Savitri v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 194
Feroz Ahmad v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 195
Union of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar Manocha 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 196
DEEPANSHU SAHU v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 197
Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 198
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199
Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 200
SANCHIT SETH v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 201
Mrs. Priya S. Kapur v. Mandhira Kapur Smith & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Moideen Kutty K @ M. K. Faizy v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Sunita Rani v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 204
MAHESH CHAND v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 205
M/S Dhanvine Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DJB 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 206
UoI v. B Srinivasa Rao & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 207
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 208
Palika Bazar Shopkeepers Welfare Association v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 209
MS A v. STATE & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Vikas Garg & Anr. v. State through CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. AAI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Shivmani Yadav v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Anand Legal Aid Trust v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 214
DEEPA SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Other Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 215
KAJOL VISHAL DEVGAN v. KASH COLLECTIVE 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 216
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 217
ARUN SURI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 218
RACHIT GUPTA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 219
NARENDER KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 220
OM PRAKSH MALHOTRA & ANR v. SACHIN MALHOTRA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 221
RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222
Heritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223
Asif @ Naeem v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 224
JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 225
Save India Foundation v. MCD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 226
JUBIN NAUTIYAL v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 227
Mujeeb Khan For And On Behalf Of Aftab Khan Missing v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 228
NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 229
UJJWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 230
SWAMI RAMDEV v. JOHN DOE (S) AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 231
Sakshi Sharma v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Neeraj Kumar v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 233
SURESH CHAND SHRIVASTVA v. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BUREAU 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 234
Himanshu Gupta v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 235
R. Usha @ G. Usha v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 236
PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 237
VIDYA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238
Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 239
Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 240
MTNL v. Shri Ram Ratan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 241
Ms. X v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 242
RAMBIR SINGH.GOLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Bachu Singh v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 244
Union of India v. Sameer Wankhede 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 245
UoI v. Brijendra Kumar Sharma & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 246
NS v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 247
Aviation Services LLC v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 248
THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 249
Mohan Tanksale v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 250
Uday Chib v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 251
KARTIK & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 252
Vimla Singh EX PGT History v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 253
Ram Kumar Pathak v. Shashi Devi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 254
Sanyogita Gupta & Ors v. Ashok Kumar Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 255
RAVJEET SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 256
SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 257
MINOR CHILD K & ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 258
SHRI BALAJI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 259
DIMPY CHUGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 260
ED v. M/S Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 261
State v. Shiv Shanker 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 262
HIMAYANI PURI v. KUNAL SHUKLA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 263
Ghunna Ram v. Union of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 264
SSC v. Yashpal Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 265
Padmaja Kumari Parmar v. Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 266
SP v. LT 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 267
Hindustan Scouts And Guides Association Through Its National Secretary Champat Singh & Anr. v. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railways 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 268
Bina Modi v. State & Anr and other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 269
SB TRIPATHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 270
Veer Pal v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 271
Ajay @ Shantu v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 272
Rajinder Kumar v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 273
Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 274
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR) v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 275
KANWARJEET SINGH BATTH v. UNION OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 276
PROF SUJATA ASHWARYA v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 277
Newslaundry v. TV Today Network Pvt Ltd & Other Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 278
DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 279
HARIS NISAR LANGOO v. NIA and ZAMIN ADIL BHAT v. NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 280
GULAM NABI v. STATE (THROUGH SHO PS KHAJURI KHAS) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 281
WASIM AKHTAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 282
Habibur Molla @ Sonu v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 283
Dharamawati v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 284
Manjay Kumar v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 285
Rajnesh Singh v. MCD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 286
Pankaj Vaid v. ICICI Bank 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 287
Aam Janata Unnayan Party v. ECI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 288
Pawan Kumar Goel v. Jyoti Sikka 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 289
United News of India v. Union Of India Through Land And Development Officer Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 290
PJ v. N 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 291
Manish Yadav v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 292
SONAKSHI SINHA v. CHARACTER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 293
PRESIDENT, INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR v. SKI AND SNOWBOARD INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 294
NADIA v. DR B R AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 295
JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF DELHI v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 296
SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 297
Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 298
Rohan Book Company Private Limited v. Sachin Tyagi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 299
Geeta Arora @ Sonu Punjaban v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 300
GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 301
State v. Vikram Singh Meena 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 302
Amit Goel & Anr. v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 303
Pradeep Batra v. Kuldip Singh Verma 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 304
M/S.Thermoking v. P.O.& Rashtriya Gen.Maz.Union 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 305
Manish Popli v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 306
Preeti Singh v. Principal Judge 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 307
Ms Shalu Pruthi v. KVS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 308
Hanuman Prasad Sharma @ H.P. Sharma v. J. Mithyleshwar 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 309
PK Varun v. PNB 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 310
Shravan Gupta v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 312
State v. Sweety 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 313
Rajat Verma v. HP Suman 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 314
Delhi Police & Anr. v. Sudheer Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 315
Tulsi Das v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 316
Smt. Bindu Sharma v. Kapil Sud And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 317
Rajeev Miglani v. Urmil Gujral & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 318
Jaideep Kumar V. Commissioner of Police & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 319
Virender Alias Bablu v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 320
Nisha Chandola & Anr v. Manoj Sharma And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 321
ABUBACKER E v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 322
PREM SHEELA KUMARI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 323
VISHWAJYOTI v. VIRENDER KUMAR SARDANA & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 324
Case title: Sandeepa Virk v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 1
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), noting that she was neither chargesheeted by the police nor summoned by the Magistrate in the predicate offence.
Case Title: Nippon Steel Corporation v. The Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 2
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order that refused a patent application filed by Nippon Steel Corporation for a “high-strength steel sheet and its manufacturing method.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi M/S TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that companies engaged in activities beyond export services cannot be treated as functionally comparable to an assessee providing export-only services.
Delhi High Court Bars Use Of “IGBC” Name Over Similarity With US Green Building Council Mark
Case Title: U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Mumbai-based Deming Certification Services Private Limited from using the marks “International Green Building Council,” “IGBC,” or any deceptively similar to the mark of U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
Title: TENZIN YOUTEN & ANR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 5
Calling it unfortunate, the Delhi High Court has observed that every FIR alleging assault or outraging modesty of a woman mentions the expression “haath mara” which is not endorsed by the complainant.
Delhi High Court Rejects Zydus Plea Against Helsinn's Nausea Medication Patent
Case Title: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 6
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the grant of a pharmaceutical patent for a nausea medication dismissing a challenge by Zydus Healthcare Ltd. against Swiss drugmaker Helsinn Healthcare SA
Case title: Triveni v. Home Department Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has held that mere brevity of reasons in an order refusing sanction to prosecute public servants is not, by itself, a ground to invoke writ jurisdiction, so long as the record demonstrates due application of mind by the competent authority.
Title: PROFESSOR ALKA ACHARYA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court has appointed a wife as legal guardian of her husband who has been in a vegetative or comatose state after suffering from an “Intracranial Haemorrhage” in February, 2025.
Title: YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY & ANR v. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court refused interim relief to YSRCP leader Y. V. Subba Reddy, in his defamation suit filed against media reporting of Tirupati laddu adulteration case.
Title: MR KONIDALA PAWAN KALYAN v. ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 10
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe interim order protecting the personality rights of Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Pawan Kalyan.
Delhi High Court Upholds Order Rejecting Ericsson's Data Security Invention Patent
Case Title: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Controller General Of Patents
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has upheld a 2019 order of the Patent Office rejecting a patent application filed by Swedish telecom major Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson for a data security invention. The court held that the claimed method did not involve an inventive step and was obvious in light of existing technology.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband's foreign income cannot be mechanically converted into Indian currency for granting maintenance to wife.
Delhi High Court Cancels “ACTIVEPUSHPA” Trademark For Similarity With Ayurvedic Brand “HEMPUSHPA”
Case Title: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad And Sons v. Karna Goomar And Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “ACTIVEPUSHPA” from the Trade Marks Register, holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “HEMPUSHPA,” a decades-old ayurvedic tonic for women's health, and is likely to confuse consumers.
Title: MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has ruled that compelling an accused to give voice sample to an investigating agency for comparison with intercepted telephone conversations "does not violate Article 20(3)" of the Constitution of India.
Title: DHEERAJ ARORA v. PARINEY KHANNA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Calling the trend “unfortunate”, the Delhi High Court has observed that a culture of seeking adjournments has developed over a period of time, leading to a misplaced expectation that such requests would be granted as a matter of course.
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ANR v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court has upheld dismissal of a petition filed by two students challenging the National Testing Agency's (NTA) findings regarding alleged manipulation of their JEE Mains, 2025, examination response sheets, while sparing them of costs but ordering them to do one-month community service instead.
Case Title: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc & Ors v. animesugez.to & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim dynamic+ injunction restraining dozens of piracy websites from hosting or making available copyrighted films and television shows owned by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and other global entertainment companies.
Title: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. KAMAL KISHORE AGGARWAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel bail granted to an accused in Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion case involving alleged tax fraud of Rs. 72 crore more than 5 years ago, while strongly criticising the investigating agency for lapses in the investigation.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting Emitec Emissions Dosing Device
Case Title: Emitec Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie mbH v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 19
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Emitec Gesellschaft für Emissionstechnologie mbH, a Germany-based automotive emissions firm, for a reducing-agent dosing device that helps cut vehicle pollution.
Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Patiala House Courts Bar Elections 2025
Title: VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS v. THE RETURNING OFFICER NDBA ELECTIONS, 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 20
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking to declare the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA) Elections, 2025, for Patiala House Courts as null and void and for conducting fresh polls.
Delhi High Court Stays Over ₹20 Crore Decrees In Favour Of Philips In DVD Patent Dispute
Case Title: Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips NV
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court stayed the execution of money decrees worth over Rs 20 crore passed in favour of Koninklijke Philips N.V., the Netherlands-based electronics company widely known as Philips. The stay is subject to the judgment debtors furnishing unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantees covering the principal amounts of damages.
Title: DHARMENDRA KUMAR v. STATE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has held that making a minor child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain City Ayurvedic Drug Maker From Using “NOKUF” For Cough Syrup
Case Title: Sana Herbals Private Limited v. Mohsin Dehlvi & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has refused to stop Dehlvi Remedies Private Limited, an city based Ayurvedic drug maker, from using the mark “NOKUF” for cough syrups, holding that its use of the mark since 1994 defeats a later claim by Sana Herbals Private Limited, which sells its product as “NOKUFSYRUP.”
Case title: Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court has held that mere global reputation of a trademark, without proof of spillover of goodwill into India, is insufficient to cancel a registered Indian trademark.
No 100% Pension Parity With Army For Pre-2009 Special Frontier Force Personnel: Delhi High Court
Case title: Ex-Servicemen Welfare Union v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has held that personnel of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) who retired prior to January 1, 2009 are not entitled to claim 100% pension parity with corresponding ranks in the Indian Army, and can only seek restoration of 45% of the commuted value of pension in terms of the earlier directions of the Court.
Case title: Ravinder Singh Gandoak v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 26
The Delhi High Court has held that absence of formal arrest does not bar a Magistrate from directing a person to furnish handwriting or signature samples under Section 311A CrPC.
Case title: Manoj Mishra v. State (and connected matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 27
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against security guards accused of wrongful restraint and outraging the modesty of a woman, holding that acts done bonafidely in the course of discharging duties can't be criminalised.
Case Name: Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v National Highway Authority of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Vacation Bench of the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Madhu Jain restrained the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) from acting on its Notice of Intention to Terminate (NITT) against Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited (RSIL) until the next hearing. The Court also protected the RSIL's insurance surety bonds of approx. Rs. 104 Crores from invocation.
Delhi High Court Warns Against 'Chaos' If Witnesses Are Recalled Every Time Counsel Changes
Case title: Sh. Vimal Ghai v. Sh. M. P. Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has refused to recall a complainant for further cross-examination in a cheque bounce case, observing that permitting recall every time a party changes its lawyer would lead to “chaos” and cause unnecessary delay in trials.
Delay Due To Medical Review Can't Justify Ante-Dated Seniority Of BSF Candidates: Delhi High Court
Case title: Jai Mangal Rai v. UoI (and batch)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court Full Bench has held that candidates appointed to the Border Security Force (BSF) after a delay caused by medical re-examination are not entitled to claim seniority over batchmates who joined the service earlier, even if the delay was not attributable to them.
Case title: CBI v. Kukwant Rai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 31
The Delhi High Court has set aside the acquittal of an accused in a counterfeit currency case, holding that minor discrepancies in counting fake currency notes are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case when the recovery and possession are otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors v. Aquestia Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court stayed an order that had restrained an Indian irrigation equipment maker from selling its “Hydromat Valve”, which was earlier held to prima facie infringe a patent owned by an Israel-based company.
Case title: Avinash Singh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be declared a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82 CrPC.
Title: X v. State & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 34
Reaffirming reproductive autonomy of women, the Delhi High Court held that marital discord impacting mental health of a woman is a valid ground to seek abortion under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
MCOCA Can Be Invoked Against Syndicate Members Even Without Prior FIRs: Delhi High Court
Case title: Anuradha @ Chiku v. State (Nct Of Delhi)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) can be invoked against an accused alleged to be a member of an organised crime syndicate even if there are no prior FIRs or charge-sheets against such accused in her individual capacity.
Presentation Of Security Cheque On Loan Default Not Criminal Breach Of Trust: Delhi High Court
Case title: China Trust Commercial Bank v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has held that presentation of a security cheque by a bank upon default of loan repayment does not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC.
Use Of Condom, Time Gap Can Explain DNA Mismatch In Rape Cases: Delhi High Court
Case title: Ram Kuber v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 37
The Delhi High Court has held that absence of DNA matching in a rape case is not fatal to the prosecution when surrounding circumstances, including use of condom by the accused and delay in medical examination, reasonably explain such absence.
No Presumption Of Wife's Earning Capacity At Interim Maintenance Stage: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 38
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be presumed to be earning or being capable of maintaining herself while considering grant of interim maintenance to her by the husband.
Title: DUSHYANT KUMAR GAUTAM v. URMILA SANA WAR & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court directed Congress party, Aam Aadmi Party and various others to take down allegedly defamatory publications from social media linking BJP's National General Secretary and former Rajya Sabha MP Dushyant Kumar Gautam to the Ankita Bhandari murder case.
Case Title: Roseland Buildtech Private Limited v. Vihaan 43 Reality Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 40
The Delhi High Court has dismissed what it described as “luxury litigation” challenging a debt assignment, saying issues of fraud or the existence of debt must be decided by the insolvency tribunal, not a civil court.
Case title: Smt Sudha Sharma v. State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court has held that in criminal cases arising out of a police report, the right to file an appeal against acquittal vests exclusively with the State.
Case title: Renuka Jain v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases arising out of a police report, only the State or the accused has the locus to seek directions for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Case title: Veena Arora v. Commissioner Income Tax - 12 Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with reassessment proceedings initiated against a taxpayer after documents seized from real estate group Bhutani Infra allegedly reflected a cash transaction linked to a flat purchase.
Title: UMESH KUMAR & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court has directed the Special Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to decide a representation filed by three lawyers seeking addition of their names in the electoral roll for the ensuing elections.
Case title: Arun Kumar Bagla v. M/S SCJ Plastics Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 45
The Delhi High Court has held that a director's assurance of payment given in the ordinary course of a commercial transaction cannot, by itself, be treated as fraudulent inducement so as to attract the offence of Cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Case title: UoI v. Naresh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, which are founded on an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry, stand vitiated where complainants are examined in the absence of the delinquent employee.
Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On ONGC Takeover Of Vedanta's Gujarat Offshore Oil Block
Case Title: Vedanta Limited v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 47
The Delhi High Court ordered a status quo on the government's move to take over an offshore oil block in Gujarat operated by Vedanta Ltd., effectively pausing the Centre's direction asking the company to stop operations and hand over the block to ONGC.
Belated Deposit Of TDS Doesn't Extinguish Criminal Liability Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dr Manoj Khanna v. Income Tax Office
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court has held that the subsequent or belated deposit of tax deducted at source (TDS) does not absolve an assessee or company officials of criminal liability under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union Of India Through Secretary (R) And Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court has held that obtaining diplomatic passports for a live-in partner and children born from such a relationship does not amount to “grave misconduct” warranting withholding of employee's pensionary benefits, where the relationship and family circumstances were consistently disclosed to the department.
Case title: Satish Kumar Gupta v. Sushil Kumar Loomba
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is supervisory in nature and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or revisiting factual findings recorded by the Rent Controller.
Case Title: SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 51
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by SJVN Limited challenging an arbitral award that granted payment to Patel Gammon Joint Venture for transporting excavated material during a hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh.
Case title: Sumeet Suri v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of a company director convicted for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, holding that the very substratum of the conviction stood weakened after his acquittal on charges of cheating and forgery.
Case Title: JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 53
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and its group companies from creating third-party rights in two solar power projects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar, holding that the share purchase agreements signed with a French investor had already come to an end on their own terms.
"Shocking": Delhi HC Pulls Up IT Dept For 8-Year Delay In Processing ₹5.37 Crore Microsoft Refund
Case Title: Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Department over “shocking” eight years delay in processing Rs 5.37 crore tax refund to Microsoft Corporation India.
Income Tax | Delhi High Court Bars Tax Recovery After Taxpayer Pays 20% Of Disputed Demand
Case Detail: Shree Krishna Steel Traders Through Proprietor Nikhil Sharma vs. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court restrained the Income Tax Department from taking any recovery action, including adjusting refunds, after it orally observed that the taxpayer had already paid 20% of the disputed tax demand and had the balance stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
Delhi High Court Quashes Higher 3.5% TDS On GE Group Payments, Restores 1.5% Rate
Case Title: GE Energy Parts Inc v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. (and connected matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has quashed the certificates issued by the Income Tax Department directing deduction of tax at source (TDS) at a higher rate of 3.5% on payments made to two GE group entities, and directed the authorities to issue fresh certificates prescribing deduction at the rate of 1.5%.
Case title: Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann v. State Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court has held that once final arguments in a criminal trial are concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment, the judge who heard the case is duty-bound to pronounce the verdict even if he or she is subsequently transferred.
Case title: Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole v. The State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court has held that convictions recorded while a prisoner is continuously incarcerated cannot render the prisoner a “habitual offender” for the purpose of denying furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-1 v. Borgwarner Emissions Systems India Private Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 59
While dealing with the Income Tax Department's appeal in a transfer pricing case, the Delhi High Court has flagged that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) failed to discharge its statutory duty by merely approving the conclusions of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) without recording independent findings.
Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Election Symbols Order, Rejects Plea By Hind Samrajya Party
Title: HIND SAMRAJYA PARTY v. UOI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking striking down of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
GST | Wrong-State Tax Payment Triggers ₹10.91 Lakh Refund Fight For Vodafone Idea
Case Detail: Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST Division Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate (MCIE)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 61
What began as a wrong-State GST payment has snowballed into a Rs 10.91 lakh refund dispute for Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Vi), after the Delhi GST Department rejected its refund claim. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene, noting that the dispute turned on how the refund period was selected while filing the application.
Case title: Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited v. Akhil Saxena & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has held that a Magistrate does not have the power to discharge an accused at the stage of Section 251 CrPC in a summons case, after cognizance has already been taken and summons issued.
Case title: Koshaliya Devi Rastogi v. Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi And Anr (and batch)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to release the jewellery and cash seized from a family's house, after the latter agreed to deposit advance tax towards their probable tax liability arising from a search operation.
Long Pendency No Ground To Avoid Remand Where Core Issues Were Never Decided: Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Satya Narain, Since Deceased Through LRs v. Chairman Delhi Development Authority Through Its Chairman & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court has held that the long pendency of a civil suit cannot be a reason to avoid remanding the matter when the trial court has failed to decide the core issues on merits.
Case title: JC v. BS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has held that while a parent is entitled to regular and meaningful visitation rights, the same can be regulated at the interim stage if circumstances indicate a risk to child's sense of security, emotional well-being or psychological stability, even without adjudicating disputed allegations between the parents.
Case title: Sh. Sanket Behari Mittal v. Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while a landlord is ordinarily considered the “best judge” of his requirements, this principle does not relieve him of the legal burden to prove a bona fide and genuine need with cogent evidence while seeking eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Title: HARSHIT AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to pursue higher or professional education is a fundamental right of an individual which cannot be curtailed lightly.
“The right to pursue higher or professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly,” Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
Title: MCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has held that a lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose the source of document given by the client as it falls within privileged communication, without there being any prima facie judicial finding of fraud.
Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has taken on record the Delhi Government's decision to enhance the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) income threshold for availing free treatment in government hospitals and private hospitals built on concessional land from Rs. 2.25 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh per annum.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that wide publicity be given to the decision so that eligible persons can avail the benefit.
Title: BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court passed a john doe order directing take down or removal of images of YouTuber and actor Bhuvan Bam being used by various entities and individuals without his consent.
Justice Jyoti Singh however said that a prima facie finding cannot be given on personality rights on the first day.
Registered Title Of Property Prevails Over Claims Of Oral Family Settlement: Delhi High Court
Case title: Sandeep Sethi & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi Deceased Through Lrs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court has held that a registered conveyance deed confers decisive title, and vague or unsubstantiated claims of an oral family settlement cannot be used to defeat such ownership.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by a man claiming joint ownership over a residential property on the basis of an alleged family arrangement, and upheld the decree in favour of his brother who held a registered conveyance deed in his name.
Case title: MCD v. M/S Ram Niwas Goel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against a decree of over ₹1.01 crore passed in favour of a contractor, holding that the civic body could not withhold payments when delays were caused by its own lapses.
Delhi High Court Upholds Bar On IFS Probationers Appearing In Civil Services Exam During Training
Title: ABHIMANYU SINGH AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court upheld bar on Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers from appearing in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) during their training period.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of petitions filed by various IFS probationers challenging a 2023 amendment prohibiting them from appearing in the CSE or any other open competitive exam during their probationary training.
IFS Cadre Allocation | Home State Must Be First Preference To Claim Insider Cadre: Delhi High Court
Case title: Union Of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 74
The Delhi High Court has held that an officer seeking allocation to their home State cadre under the All India Services Cadre Allocation Policy must necessarily indicate the home State as their first preference, and that merely expressing willingness to serve in the home State or listing it as a lower preference does not create any enforceable right.
Case title: Mr Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Mrs Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. Union Of India Through Its Standing Counsel & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), holding that although it possessed territorial jurisdiction, it was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute.
Title: First Generation Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 76
he Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking extension of benefits of the Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme to the eligible lawyers' parents.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that a mandamus cannot be issued in the matter, while citing autonomy to contract between two parties, one of them being the Delhi Government.
Title: Court on its own motion v. State & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 77
The Delhi High Court said that the Delhi Government or its agencies cannot shirk away from their responsibility to provide shelter to patients, attendants and their family members forced to sleep outside city hospitals in the biting winter cold due to lack of shelter.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued urgent short term directions, after it recently took suo motu cognizance of the situation.
Case title: P v. A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband's legal obligation to pay maintenance to his wife and minor child living with her does not get diluted merely because another child from their marriage is residing with him.
Frame Rules To Ensure Execution Of Delhi School Tribunal Orders: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Government to take steps and frame appropriate Rules to ensure that the Delhi School Tribunal is vested with appropriate legal authority to get its orders executed.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Claiming Auto Festival Will Worsen Air Pollution
Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL against “Burnout City India” event scheduled to be organized at NSIC Exhibition Ground on January 17, claiming that it will aggravate the existing air pollution.
The event is an automotive and lifestyle festival, involving massive vehicles showcase, drift and stunt zones, and music events.
Case title: Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has held that rubbing of a male genital against a child's genital, in the absence of proof of penetration, does not constitute “penetrative sexual assault” under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed
“The rubbing of the penis of the accused against the private part of PW1 does not apparently come within clauses (a) to (d) of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the case of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 or aggravated penetrative sexual assault as contemplated under Section 5 of the PoCSO Act cannot be held to have been made out from the materials available on record.”
Bar Associations Do Not Perform Public Functions, Not State Under Article 12: Delhi High Court
Title: SANGITA RAI v. NEW DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Bar Associations do not perform public functions and are not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Title: PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere registration of an FIR does not imply pendency of a criminal case for the purpose of “disclosure” by an election candidate under Section 33A of Representation of Peoples Act.
Case title: Somnath Bharti v. Shri Satish Upadhyay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 84
The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti, challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Satish Upadhyay from the Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency.
Title: Prannoy Roy v. Commissioner of Income Tax & other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 85
The Delhi High Court has set aside the income tax reassessment notices issued to New Delhi Television Ltd. (NDTV) founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy (petitioners), relating to a transaction involving RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd, a promoter group of the news network.
Pendency Of Probate Proceedings No Bar To FIR Alleging Forgery Of Registered Will: Delhi High Court
Case title: Babita Chopra v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 86
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging forgery of a registered Will, holding that the pendency of probate proceedings examining the Will's validity does not bar a parallel criminal investigation into allegations of fabrication and use of forged documents.
Case name: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court rejected Kuldeep Singh Sengar's plea seeking suspension of his 10 years sentence in the custodial death case of Unnao rape victim's father.
Title: Vikas Pawha v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 88
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order for take down or removal of images of Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa being used on social media for defrauding people.
Tribunal Can't Direct Reinstatement Without Considering Pending Criminal Matters: Delhi High Court
Case Name : Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ex. Const. Arvind Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 89
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that even if dismissal is set aside in departmental proceedings, reinstatement and service benefits must be decided by the competent authority after considering the employee's subsequent criminal conviction on a different charge.
Title: Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. High Court & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 90
The Delhi High Court refused to order FIR over a recent incident wherein a 43-year-old differently-abled ahlmad jumped to death and committed suicide at the Saket Courts, allegedly citing “work pressure”.
Calling the incident unfortunate, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia remarked that they were conscious of the situation and that steps as warranted are being taken.
Title: DEVYANI SINGH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking to ban Bangladesh from participating in all cricket tournaments and competitions, citing violence against Hindus there.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rapped the petitioner, a law student, for filing such a PIL while also repeatedly cautioning pursuing the matter may invite heavy costs.
Title: MS. MUSKAAN AAMIR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by various law students of the University of Delhi, holding that shortage of attendance cannot be a valid ground to detain them from appearing in examinations or preventing them from continuing their academic pursuits.
Case title: Sunil Kumar Tiwari And Ors. v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 93
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the All India Council for Technical Education's (AICTE) prescription of a PhD degree as an eligibility condition for granting a higher Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of ₹10,000 to lecturers in government polytechnic institutions.
Title: RAM SWAROOP GUPTA & ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 94
The Delhi High Court has held that calling upon an accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness in the absence of legal assistance strikes at the very core of fair trial and vitiates the entire proceedings.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that presence of legal assistance for the accused facing trial is the core element of fair trial.
Mere Averments In Pleadings To Prosecute Or Defend Case Not Defamation: Delhi High Court
Title: HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere averments made in the pleadings, either to prosecute or defend oneself, does not tantamount to an offence of defamation.
Case title: UoI v. 627281 EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court has held that merely branding a disability like hypertension as a "lifestyle disorder" is insufficient to deny disability pension to an Air Force personnel, particularly when the medical opinion rejecting the claim is unsupported by cogent reasons.
Title: DRY v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has held that a father who rapes his daughter cannot be shown any relaxation in POCSO cases.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the conviction of a father for repeatedly raping his minor daughter studying in 6th standard in July 2021.
Case title: National Institute Of Tuberculosis And Respiratory Diseases v. Ms. Shweta & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 98
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had directed the appointment of a candidate on the basis of an erroneous recruitment advertisement where no actual vacancy existed for the reserved category.
Case title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Shri Darshan Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-petitions filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) and a Safai Karamchari and thus, upheld an Industrial Tribunal award granting ₹1 lakh retrenchment compensation for illegal termination. The HC, however, declined the workman's plea for reinstatement with back wages.
Title: DR AVADESH KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 100
The Delhi High Court has ruled that adults cannot use rape law as a tool to criminalize breakups when the relationship was consensual between two individuals.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that failed relationships cannot be given a criminal colour, also warning against the misuse of rape charges invoked in broken romantic relationships.
Title: PHYSICSWALLAH LIMITED v. NIKHIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court directed removal or take down of abusive and derogatory social media posts made against online education platform PhysicsWallah, by a former employee.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim injunction order in a defamation suit filed by PhysicsWallah against Nikhil Kumar Singh and social media platforms.
Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed by Lokpal of India seeking more time to decide on granting sanction to the CBI, to file chargesheet against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in relation to the cash for query row.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted two months' time to Lokpal and clarified that no further time shall be granted.
Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 103
The Delhi High Court permitted the Delhi Government to provide school uniform assistance to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) students in private schools through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), instead of supplying uniforms strictly in kind.
Case Name : Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 104
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that once a disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty based on a conviction, it cannot reopen the same incident to impose a harsher punishment merely because the criminal appeal results in a reduced sentence, as this violates the principle against double jeopardy.
Case title: Narender Singh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 105
The Delhi High Court has discharged a process server who was accused of fabricating a false service report to facilitate an ex parte divorce, holding that the material on record did not disclose "grave suspicion" against him to justify framing of charges.
The Court ruled that findings in departmental proceedings cannot be elevated to substantive evidence in a criminal case, nor can prosecution be founded on oral assertions regarding a document that was never seized or produced before the Court.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Allowing Childless Widow To Continue Family Pension After Remarriage
Title: SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, entitling a childless widow to continue to receive family pension after remarriage.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by the parents of a deceased CRPF personnel seeking grant of family pension to them after the remarriage of their son's widow.
Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Clear Hawkers From Anand Vihar ISBT, Orders Beautification Plan
Title: MAHILA HAWKER WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHAHDRA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 107
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to remove all hawkers and vendors from the congested area around the Anand Vihar ISBT, while permitting only 105 vendors, who were found eligible to vend through mobile carts and without any permanent structures.
Case title: Karan Singh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 108
The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which mandates the furnishing of written grounds of arrest to an accused before remand in all offences, will operate prospectively and cannot be applied to arrests made prior to the date of the ruling.
Case title: Harsh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application after finding that the accused had filed parallel anticipatory bail pleas before two different courts, which were being heard on the same day, terming the conduct a "clear abuse of process in the name of liberty".
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has held that mere registration of marriage between two individuals cannot determine matrimonial harmony or their intention to cohabit together.
“Registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship,” a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed.
Case title: SSB v. DBC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has held that the long-standing "Tender Years Doctrine", which presumes that custody of young children should ordinarily vest with the mother, is rooted in "highly stereotypical" premises and is "no longer apposite" to contemporary custody adjudication.
Case Title: NARENDRA SHARMA V/s GNCTD & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court disposed of a PIL seeking adequate medical facilities in city's District Court Complexes, to provide emergency healthcare to stakeholders including lawyers, litigants and security personnel.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia emphasized on the importance of issue raised and asked the Petitioner to approach the High Court on administrative side.
Case title: ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid challenging an order framing charges against him in a UAPA case, stating that it is an interlocutory order against which appeal is not maintainable.
In doing so, the court referred to a coordinate bench's decision in December 2025 which had held that a charge order cannot be challenged in appeal under NIA Act as it is interlocutory in nature.
High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Bridge Digital Gap In Access To Online Welfare Schemes
Case Title: Aduram v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court asked the Delhi government to take steps for enhanced accessibility of online government facilities, such as registration for housing welfare schemes, so as to ensure that services can be easily availed by persons not adept with technology, senior citizens, persons of disadvantaged groups, etc.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia orally suggested State counsel Sameer Vashishth to consider establishing e-kiosk facility/ help desks which assist citizens with accessing online government services, irrespective of the Department offering them.
Case Title: CHANDANI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) V/s GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court said that it will form an Oversight Committee to monitor and remove the deficiencies and illegal activities in city's Chandni Chowk and surrounding areas.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia orally observed, "...authorities are also not moving as they ought to...as we had proposed earlier, we'll form a Committee...what we propose is, we'll form a Committee and all the Departments, including the MCD shall report to the Committee...we'll call for reports from the Committee...and perhaps let's hope things will start moving now...otherwise it becomes difficult for the court to monitor all this."
Case title: Sarita Tiwari v. M/S Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has held that while a probationary employee falls within the definition of a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of a probationer without a full-scale formal departmental inquiry is legally valid if the order is one of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic.
Case Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court rejected the suit filed by IRS officer Sameer Wankhede over his allegedly defamatory portrayal in the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood” directed by Aryan Khan.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused to entertain the suit on grounds of jurisdiction and returned the plaint to Wankhede in order to approach the court of competent jurisdiction.
30 Years On, Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Police ASI For Accepting ₹5,000 Bribe
Case title: Baldev Singh v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a police Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in a corruption case dating back nearly three decades.
A bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony cannot eclipse clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Title: VIJAY GUPTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by a trial court dismissing a bail application solely on the ground that it was “too voluminous and bulky.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that judicial discipline requires that matters be decided on substance rather than rejected on form, and that liberty of an accused cannot be made to hinge upon the perceived 'bulk' of the papers placed before the Court.
Title: CBI v. I M QUDDUSI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court, has held unsustainable a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 91 CrPC, to a retired judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, Justice Ishrat Masroor Qureshi, holding that such a notice could not be used to "compel the accused" to furnish information requiring disclosure of facts based on personal knowledge.
Title: MANJEET v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION (IOA) AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 121
The Delhi High Court held that the exclusion of cross-country skier Manjeet from India's Olympic contingent for the XXV Winter Olympic Games, Milano Cortina 2026, is manifestly arbitrary, unfair and contrary to the governing international qualification framework.
Case title: Jamia Millia Islamia v. Roshan Ara & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has held that the executive decision of the University cannot override existing Recruitment Rules unless formally amended.
The division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav thus dismissed an appeal filed by Jamia Millia Islamia, against a Single Judge order directing it to consider eligible Assistant Librarians for promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian.
Case title: State v. Sunil @ Pahalwan & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can't be extended to persons convicted for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC, as the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers Courts to release certain offenders, not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, on probation of good conduct.
Case title: The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Haazari Singh Rawat & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has held that an allegation that the pillion rider on a two-wheeler was under the influence of alcohol cannot justify a finding of contributory negligence unless a clear causal link is established between the alleged intoxication and the occurrence of the accident.
Title: KUSUM SEHGAL v. HERITAGE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE & ORS & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to conduct a comprehensive survey of buildings located in the vicinity of notified heritage properties in the national capital to check if there are any illegal constructions.
Labour Code Rules To Be Finalized By February End: Centre Tells Delhi High Court
Title: NA Sebastian & Anr v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Central Government told the Delhi High Court that the Rules under the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020, will be finalised by the end of February.
Noting the said development, the Court closed a PIL filed by one NA Sebastian challenging the notification issued by the Central Government on November 21 bringing the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, into force.
PMLA Bail Requires Delicate Balance, Not Final Verdict On Guilt Or Innocence: Delhi High Court
Title: BHASKAR YADAV v. ED & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 127
The Delhi High Court has ruled that under the PMLA, a delicate balance has to be maintained between the final judgment of acquittal or conviction and an order granting or denying bail.
Title: MRS. AJIT INDER SINGH v. MR. SIMRANJIT SINGH GREWAL & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court has held that the duty to maintain an unmarried minor daughter of a pre-deceased son may constitute a “pre-existing right” capable of enlarging her limited estate into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Case title: Shivam v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of stealing high-voltage cables from Delhi Metro infrastructure, observing that such acts amount to “playing with the lives of the general public” and have serious implications for public safety.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Administrative Order Barring Execution Petitions Below ₹2 Crore
Title: ASIAN PATENT ATTONRNEYS ASSOCIATION (INDIAN GROUP) v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Delhi High Court has held that no litigant can be barred at the threshold from filing execution petitions before the Registry, even in cases where the decree amount is Rs. 2 crore or below.
Case Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court allowed IRS officer Sameer Wankhede to approach the City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai to file a suit over his allegedly defamatory portrayal in the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood” directed by Aryan Khan.
Case title: Rahul Singh Tolia v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court has refused to reopen the Indian Forest Service (IFS) cadre allocation of an officer, holding that even an admitted error in vacancy calculation cannot justify unsettling cadre allocations after a long lapse of time, given the serious cascading consequences such a move would entail.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court directed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by February 04, after coming down heavily on him for repeatedly breaching undertakings given to the Court regarding payment of settlement amounts in cheque dishonour cases.
Case title: Okoli Anayo Franklin v. The State NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court has held that the presence of an absconding co-accused can be a relevant factor while considering bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Case title: Meet Bhadresh Shah v. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has quashed a decision of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) cancelling the candidature of a top-rank holder for admission to the DM (Critical Care Medicine) course, holding that postgraduate residency of 1,095 days can be cumulative across institutions when the prospectus does not mandate training from a single institute.
Title: HARPREET SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 137
Citing writer Franz Kafka, the Delhi High Court has ordered premature release of a former President's Bodyguard, who is serving life sentence for the 2003 robbery and gang rape of a young woman.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the authorities, including the Sentence Review Board (SRB) acted arbitrarily in repeatedly denying him premature release despite over two decades of incident‑free custody and consistent positive reform reports.
Title: ALL INDIA PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the All India Pickleball Association (AIPA) challenging the Union Government's decision to recognise the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for the sport in the country.
Title: MS. YANGCHEN DRAKMARGYAPON v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has declared a Tibetan-origin woman born in Dharamshala in 1966 as an Indian citizen by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed that she be issued an Indian passport.
Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Police Sub-Inspector In 1995 CBI Bribery Trap Case
Case title: Manoj Kumar v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector in a 1995 corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Title: SONU @ SONU SINGH @ GOPAL v. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 141
The Delhi High Court has strongly deprecated a 13-year delay in securing the custody of a life convict whose criminal appeal had already been dismissed, calling it a serious systemic failure that corrodes the credibility of the criminal justice system.
Elective Nature Of Surgery Doesn't Bar Interim Bail On Medical Grounds: Delhi High Court
Case title: Amit Gulia v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has held that the elective or non-emergency nature of a medical procedure cannot by itself be ground to deny interim bail to an accused, particularly where the ailment causes continuing pain and requires timely surgical intervention.
Title: VARUN KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (SHO RAJINDER NAGAR)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that while consent of a minor has no legal value, the romantic nature of the relationship and the prosecutrix's age being close to 18 years are relevant considerations at the stage of bail.
Case title: Pramod @ Parmal v. State (Nct Of Delhi)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has held that the fact that an accused is not named in the FIR is not decisive at the stage of bail if the investigation reveals financial transactions establishing active coordination and involvement in an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Title: VICKY KASHYAP v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that name, parentage or address of victim of sexual assault are not disclosed in the status reports or documents filed in the Court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma requested the Commissioner of Police to reiterate appropriate instructions to all SHOs and Investigating Officers, in strict compliance with law.
Case title: Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) And Anr v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not automatic and cannot be invoked merely on the basis of similarity in job designation or duties, particularly when educational qualifications and recruitment rules differ.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court refused to extend the deadline granted to Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent in relation to his conviction in cheque dishonour cases.
Case title: CAG v. Manoj Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court has held that a government employee who furnishes a false medical certificate to justify unauthorised absence commits grave misconduct, warranting the penalty of dismissal from service.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Decriminalise 'Ganja', Asks Centre To Review NDPS Act
Case title: Great Legislation Movement India Trust v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Government to review whether the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the NDPS Rules relating to the use of cannabis (ganja) require dilution.
Case title: Amardeep Sharma v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to two directors of a private company accused of fraudulently procuring and misusing bulk mobile SIM connections for activities linked to cybercrime.
Case title: Mr Raj Kumar Gupta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Kanwarji Raj Kumar v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a Chandni Chowk-based sweet manufacturing unit for discharging untreated effluent into public sewers leading to the Yamuna river.
Title: SAHIL ARSH v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has quashed Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which imposed a complete prohibition on migration of MBBS students from one medical college to another.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 153
The Delhi High Court has held that mere allegations of adultery, unsupported by proof, cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
Title: HANUMANT LAL PATEL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has rejected challenge to Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2023, particularly Paper-II (CSAT), observing that judicial review in competitive examinations is extremely limited.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court has held that a mother's right to personal development, dignity and autonomy, including the pursuit of higher education abroad, is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be curtailed merely because custody and visitation proceedings are pending.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court refused to recall its order directing Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent in relation to his conviction in cheque dishonour cases.
Title: DEVYANSHU SURYAVANSHI & ORS v. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has asked the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to adopt a more systematic and rigorous approach in framing, vetting and finalising question papers and answer keys in the recruitment examinations.
Title: PRABHROOP KAUR KAPOOR & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has quashed two CBSE notifications which had withdrawn the facility for Class XII pass-outs of the year 2025 to appear in an “Additional Subject” as private candidates, holding that the decision was arbitrary, retrospectively applied, and violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation .
Title: SHLOK BHARDWAJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court has permitted a JEE 2026 aspirant to reappear in the Main Session-I examination who faced repeated biometric authentication failures, observing that the prejudice suffered cannot be dismissed as insignificant.
Title: LAXMI DEVI & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court has held that consenting adults do not need societal approval for choosing their respective life partners and that society or their parents cannot interfere in such matters.
'Half-Baked Petition': Delhi High Court Dismisses Centre's Plea With ₹25,000 Costs
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. INDER PAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Union Government challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), observing that it was filed after an inordinate delay of three years and was a “half-baked” attempt lacking the complete record.
Title: SURESH SHARMA v. KRISHAN LAL THUKRAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 162
The Delhi High Court has issued detailed practice directions to all the district courts in the national capital to ensure that every judicial order clearly reflects the numbers of applications decided, as well as the appearance of parties or their counsel.
Title: PARVEEN TANEJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has called for integration of data of complaint cases which do not result in FIRs as also cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts on the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) portal.
Title: AYUSHMAN INITIATIVE FOR CHILD RIGHTS & ANR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 164
The Delhi High Court asked a PIL petitioner, who sought the formulation of structured 'Child Access and Custody Guidelines' and a 'Parenting Plan', to approach the HC on its Administrative Side for policy formulation regarding the issue.
Title: PRERNA GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 165
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking revision of the final result of Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2023, observing that judicial interference may open floodgates, leading to cascading consequences and rendering the process unworkable.
Title: MALABAR GOLD AND DIAMOND LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has held that blanket and disproportionate freezing of bank accounts, especially where the account holder is neither an accused nor even a suspect, is “manifestly arbitrary” and violates Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Title: SURJEET KUMAR @ KALU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has directed all trial courts in the national capital to ensure that testimony of witnesses already being examined should be recorded on day-to-day basis till its conclusion, in order to minimise the possibility of pressurising witnesses .
Title: AMAN PRATAP SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a probationary officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) challenging the termination of his services following circulation of a viral courtroom video, holding that the decision was a termination simpliciter based on overall unsuitability, and not a punitive or stigmatic action.
Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe interim order protecting the personality rights of actor and entrepreneur Vivek Oberoi.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction in favour of the actor, while restraining multiple defendants and unidentified (John Doe) entities from misappropriating and exploiting his personality and publicity rights, including his name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive attributes, through artificial intelligence and other digital technologies.
Case title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court directed the Police to provide round-the-clock security to a lawyer who has alleged that he was beaten up inside a court room in Tis Hazari courts in front of the presiding judge last week.
Title: THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court directed that schools in the national capital which have not yet constituted the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) shall not be compelled to do so until February 20, while it considers challenges to the Delhi School Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2026.
Case title: GBL Chemicals Limited & Ors. v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings in a cheque dishonour case, holding that dropping the cheque signatory from the array of accused does not invalidate prosecution against the company and its directors under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Film 'Ghooskhor Pandat' Will Be Renamed: Netflix Tells Delhi High Court
Title: Mahender Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Netflix told the Delhi High Court that the Manoj Bajpayee-starrer film “Ghooskhor Pandat” will be renamed.
The statement was made before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav who was hearing the plea challenging the proposed release of the film.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the plea, noting that nothing more was required to be adjudicated.
Case title: Rohit Lamba & Anr. v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has expressed “extreme shock” at the conduct of parties and their advocate misleading a Family Court into passing a divorce decree in respect of a void marriage.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not confer an indefeasible right upon an aggrieved woman to insist on residence in a particular property which was abandoned by her, when suitable alternate accommodation is available.
Title: VIKAS PUNDHIR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to associate with political parties and being actively involved in politics is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Title: SH. SUNIL KUMAR v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no fundamental right to possess firearms under the Constitution of India, holding that the grant of an arms licence is a matter falling squarely within the domain of executive discretion under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Barring Doctors From Holding Administrative Posts After 62 Years
Title: DR. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union government's 2018 amendment to Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(bb), which allows doctors of the Central Health Service and other allied services to serve up to 65 years only in non‑administrative roles, while treating 62 years as the normal age of superannuation.
Delhi High Court Directs Police Commissioner To Address Lapses In Filing Motor Accident Reports
Title: ANUP KUMAR RAMPAL v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH JOINT COMMISSIONER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate decision and steps to ensure that monitoring mechanism for motor accident cases is appropriately implemented.
Title: SARVESH SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to take corrective measures to ensure that investigating officers brief the prosecutors before hearing in bail matters commences.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.K. Nijhawan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 183
The Delhi High Court has held that a workman is not entitled to wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after attaining the age of superannuation, as the provision operates only during the period when the employer–employee relationship subsists.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court has cautioned against casual appearances by proxy counsel and urged the young lawyers to read case briefs.
Case title: M/S CSAT System (P) Ltd v. Appellant Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has held that State-appointed authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 lack jurisdiction to adjudicate gratuity claims where the establishment has branches in more than one State, as in such cases the Central Government is the “appropriate government” under the Act.
Title: VIKAS YADAV v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition moved by Vikas Yadav, serving a 25-year jail term without remission for the murder of business executive Nitish Katara in 2002, seeking release on furlough.
Case title: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has held that tweeting or publicly disseminating allegations of corruption against one's employer can amount to misconduct under applicable service rules.
Title: MARIA RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of a look out circular against an accused.
Case title: Rohit Gagerna v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused in a cyber fraud case involving a fake trading application, observing that the material on record prima facie indicated money laundering of approximately ₹43.33 crore through circular and layered transactions.
Case title: Aman@ Prince @ Bhura v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a murder case while directing action against police officials for filing a misleading status report by concealing vital evidence from the Court.
Case title: Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti v. AIIMS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has held that the remuneration received by a doctor during Junior Residency constitutes “income” for the purpose of determining eligibility under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.
Will Challenge Arvind Kejriwal's Acquittal In Cases Over Skipping Summons: ED Tells Delhi High Court
Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Delhi High Court that it will challenge the acquittal of former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal in cases concerning non compliance of its summons in relation to the alleged liquor policy scam.
This was after Kejriwal's counsel sought withdrawal of the plea challenging the summons issued to the AAP leader by the ED.
The Court thereafter allowed the withdrawal of the plea. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, it said.
Case title: Mohan @ Akkar v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has upheld the life sentence of a murder convict nearly 24 years after the crime, while analysing how police officers performing para-police functions perceive and respond to emergencies.
Case title: Savitri v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a woman accused of trafficking and using a minor child for the purpose of carrying out illicit liquor trade, observing that the exploitation of children as instruments to commit crimes has become a growing menace.
Case title: Feroz Ahmad v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a robbery case nearly 23 years after the trial court convicted him, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt and that the test identification parade (TIP) was unreliable.
Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar Manocha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 196
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that chronic degenerative diseases like osteoarthritis qualify as “severe illness” under Railway Board circulars, entitling an employee to regularization of retained government accommodation and it exempts from penal or special licence fee.
Title: DEEPANSHU SAHU v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 197
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to decide a plea seeking mandatory disclosure of cryptocurrencies and other virtual digital assets by election candidates in their nomination affidavits.
Disqualification For Public Employment Is Removed When Offender Is Released On Probation: Delhi HC
Case Name : Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 198
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that release on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes the disqualification attached to a conviction for purposes of public employment, even though the conviction itself is not wiped out.
Cheque Bounce Cases: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Suspension Of Sentence To Actor Rajpal Yadav
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court suspended for the interim, the sentence imposed on Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav in relation to his conviction in cheque dishonour cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim suspension of sentence till March 18.
Case Name : Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 200
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that recruitment authorities can prescribe minimum qualifying marks after the recruitment process begins but before the relevant stage of examination, if such discretion is reserved in the advertisement.
NEET-PG 2025: Delhi High Court Upholds Cut-Off Reduction, Says No Arbitrariness In Policy Decision
Title: SANCHIT SETH v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) reducing the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025 examination after commencement of the admission process.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the decision to reduce the eligibility criteria was taken after due deliberations and the eligibility criteria was recalibrated to ensure the optimal utilisation of the vacant seats.
Title: Mrs. Priya S. Kapur v. Mandhira Kapur Smith & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court restrained late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's wife Priya Kapur and her sister in law Mandhira Kapur Smith from making defamatory statements against each other.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the Kapurs should conduct themselves with dignity and must not defame each other publicly.
Leadership Role In PFI Before It Was Banned Doesn't By Itself Attract PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case title: Moideen Kutty K @ M. K. Faizy v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has held that merely holding a leadership position in the Popular Front of India (PFI) at a time when the organisation was lawful does not, by itself, constitute an offence of money laundering under PMLA.
Case title: Sunita Rani v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court has held that a candidate who was over-age on the cut-off date cannot claim appointment to a regular post merely because she had rendered long years of service as a part-time librarian.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus dismissed the challenge to a selection process for the post of Librarian in a Delhi Government-aided school.
Title: MAHESH CHAND v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to operate and run a bar or pub must be balanced with the citizens' and children's right to a noise-free, peaceful, and orderly environment.
“The age old proverb given to ordinary citizens is “don't take the law into your own hand”, the rationale obviously being that is for the authorities to wield the proverbial stick of the law, and enforce the same,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Case title: M/S Dhanvine Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DJB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Delhi Jal Board's tender condition disqualifying bidders if they are facing FIRs, charge sheets or criminal proceedings relating to corruption, fraud or economic offences, even in the absence of a conviction.
Case title: UoI v. B Srinivasa Rao & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that transfer and posting are matters of administrative discretion, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) cannot interdict such decisions through ad-interim orders, especially at a preliminary stage of proceedings.
Case title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court is examining whether the requirement of mandatory vegetarian/ non-vegetarian labelling through red, brown or green dots on toothpaste and other toiletry packaging can be enforced under existing law, amid conflicting positions taken by regulatory authorities.
Accordingly, the Court has directed that a joint meeting shall be held between the Director, Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at as to the implementation of incorporation of the Red, Brown and Green dot on packaging of various products.
Case title: Palika Bazar Shopkeepers Welfare Association v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to hear representatives of shopkeepers and street vendors before taking a final decision on the Town Vending Plan proposed for Connaught Place and Palika Bazar, which were designated as no-vending zones by the Supreme Court in Sudhir Madan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors (2007).
Title: MS A v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court has ruled that consent given by a woman cannot be retrospectively withdrawn so as to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence merely because the relationship has broken down.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that while law must remain vigilant in protecting women from genuine sexual exploitation, coercion, and abuse, it must equally guard against the misuse of its process.
Case title: Vikas Garg & Anr. v. State through CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the criminal charges framed against a due diligence firm and its authorised signatory in a ₹600 lakh bank loan fraud case, holding that the material on record discloses grave suspicion warranting a full-fledged trial.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “in view of the positive Report submitted by the Petitioners despite the glaring irregularities and contradictions, there arises grave suspicion regarding involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offence and which can be only tested in trial.”
Case title: Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. AAI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has held that ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation in recruitment cannot claim consideration against unreserved (UR) posts, even if they secure higher marks than candidates shortlisted in the unreserved category.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus dismissed a writ petition filed by ex-servicemen candidates against the Airport Authority of India (AAI), for recruitment to Non-Executive Cadres under the UR category.
Title: Shivmani Yadav v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court directed the Union Government on Wednesday to take a decision on issuing a notification for appointment of a presiding officer to head the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Government of India to take a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.
Title: Anand Legal Aid Trust v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking “omnibus” prayers over the recent issue of persons being missing from the national capital.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rapped the petitioner- Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, noting that the PIL did not contain specific instances or details on the issue.
Delhi High Court Urges More Judicial Appointments For MCOCA Cases, Calls For Administrative Action
Title: DEEPA SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 215
The Delhi High Court has called for more judicial appointments to deal with cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha said that a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge would be qualified to be appointed as a judge of the Special Court under Section 5(3) of the MCOCA.
Title: KAJOL VISHAL DEVGAN v. KASH COLLECTIVE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Devgan.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained various defendant entities from using the actress' image and likeness while selling commercial merchandise as well as ordered takedown of obscene material.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has observed that a homemaker does not sit idle and the law must recognise the economic value of her contribution to the domestic relationship.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the assumption that a non-earning spouse is “idle” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution, as describing non-employment as idleness is easy but to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult.
Ancestral Or Inherited Properties Can Be Attached Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Title: ARUN SURI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has held that ancestral or inherited properties can be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“The statute does not carve out an exception for ancestral or inherited properties, and thus, they are not immune from attachment,” a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.
Presence Of Public Urinal, Open Garbage Bin Next To Residence Violates Article 21: Delhi High Court
Title: RACHIT GUPTA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has held that presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin right next to an individual's residence violates the right to live with dignity in a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Amit Bansal underscored that one of the integral aspects of a healthy life is hygienic environment, absence of which will affect an individual's right to live with dignity.
Title: NARENDER KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court ordered non disclosure of the identity of the 17 year old minor accused in relation to the recent SUV accident in Dwarka which claimed the life of a 23 year old.
“The respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 (Union of India, Press Council of India and Press Trust of India) and those under them are restrained from disclosing the record of the child for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise of the juvenile accused in relation to the FIR till the next date of hearing,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed.
Delhi High Court Fines Lawyer For Failing To Inform Opposite Side's Counsel While Seeking Adjournmen
Title: OM PRAKSH MALHOTRA & ANR v. SACHIN MALHOTRA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has fined a lawyer for failing to inform the opposite side's counsel while seeking an adjournment.
Justice Anish Dayal imposed costs of Rs. 15,000 on the lawyer appearing for the respondent side in a plea filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Title: RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court closed a plea seeking to stop the continued streaming of the film Lady Chatterley's Lover in India on OTT platform Netflix on the grounds of containing “excessively graphic sexual scenes and frontal nudity.”
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted liberty to the litigant, Raj Kumar, to approach Digital Publisher Content Grievances Council which is a tier-two body under Information Technology Rules 2021 to resolve viewer complaints.
Case title: Heritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a Hyderabad-based dairy company in a defamation suit filed against a media house, television channel and digital platforms over reports allegedly linking it to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) ghee/laddus adulteration.
The suit has been instituted by Heritage Foods Limited alleging that a series of newspaper reports, television broadcasts and online publications falsely associated it with the supply of adulterated ghee to the Tirupati temple.
Case title: Asif @ Naeem v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has ordered premature release of a Bangladeshi national, sentenced to life in a dacoity and murder case, holding that the gravity of the offence by itself cannot be the sole ground to deny premature release once the eligibility threshold under the applicable policy has been crossed.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus set aside the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) which had rejected his plea for premature release despite prolonged incarceration and satisfactory prison conduct.
Title: JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing marriage citing kundli mismatch after establishing physical relations and repeated assurances of marriage attracts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her on the ground of non-matching of kundalis.
Case title: Save India Foundation v. MCD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging a 46 years old Wakf notification listing certain mosques in the city's Jahangirpuri area, holding that the plea was an “unnecessary attempt to rake up the past” by reopening settled issues after several decades.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Personality Rights Of Singer Jubin Nautiyal
Title: JUBIN NAUTIYAL v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the singer restraining multiple AI platforms, websites and e-commerce intermediaries from unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights.
Case title: Mujeeb Khan For And On Behalf Of Aftab Khan Missing v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to grant consular access and legal assistance to the family of an Indian worker who allegedly went missing after being swept away by strong sea currents while snorkelling in the Republic of Maldives.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the direction while disposing of a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the brother of the worker, Aftab Khan, who was employed as a Chef at a resort in Maldives.
Mere Breaking Up Of Relationship Not 'Instigation' For Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court
Title: NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere breaking up of a relationship does not constitute “instigation” to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“Though, broken relationship and heartbreaks have become common these days, mere breaking-up of relationship may not per se constitute instigation so as to make it to be a case of abetment under Section 108 BNS (corresponding Section 306 IPC),” Justice Manoj Jain said.
Title: UJJWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, observing that mere refusal to marry or failure to respond to messages does not constitute instigation or abetment under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a suicide note, by itself, is not sufficient to deny bail in the absence of any clear, proximate act of instigation.
Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Swami Ramdev, Orders Take Down Of Deepfake Content
Title: SWAMI RAMDEV v. JOHN DOE (S) AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved founder Ramdev.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained various individuals, including unknown entities, from misusing his name, image, voice and other personality attributes through AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial listings.
Case title: Sakshi Sharma v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 232
The Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of an officer from the Bank of Baroda, holding that the maker–checker system is only a risk-control mechanism and does not confer immunity on an officer who initiates unauthorised or self-serving transactions.
Case title: Neeraj Kumar v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court has clarified that only the period during which an accused is in actual custody can be counted for the purpose of computing the maximum permissible period of police remand under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that time spent on interim bail cannot be treated as custody.
Title: SURESH CHAND SHRIVASTVA v. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BUREAU
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking “reading down” of the preliminary investigation report on the Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad on June 12 last year, claiming 270 lives.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the prayer was “highly misconceived” as the doctrine of reading down is applied by superior courts while interpreting provisions of some statute.
Case title: Himanshu Gupta v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to contractors accused in a case where a young man lost his life after falling into a 20-foot-deep pit dug on a public road without any caution boards, barricading, or safety measures, observing that “public roads can't be turned into death traps.”
Case title: R. Usha @ G. Usha v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused in a ₹2 crore fraud case, while criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to apprehend her for nearly 13 years.
Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked,
“The fact that it took 13 years for a premier central investigating agency to even apprehend a Proclaimed Offender speaks volumes about their interest or lack thereof in arresting the accused/applicant.”
Title: PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain an appeal challenging a single judge order rejecting the challenge to election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia from Patparganj constituency in the 2020 Assembly polls.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and has to be filed before the Supreme Court, under Section 116A of Representation of People Act.
Title: VIDYA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has held that a woman whose marriage was solemnised during the subsistence of her husband's first marriage is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, even if the first wife subsequently passes away.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora underscored that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act clearly stipulates that marriage between a Hindu man and woman is void if the marriage took place during the subsistence of his first marriage.
Case title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court has held that wards of such armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but were retained in service and completed their tenure are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.
Case title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has held that wards of such armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but were retained in service and completed their tenure are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.
Case title: MTNL v. Shri Ram Ratan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has held that once a Labour Court upholds the fairness and validity of a domestic enquiry, it cannot thereafter re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority to substitute the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Case title: Ms. X v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a 281-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition, holding that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of an earlier filing date after allowing a petition to remain under objections for months and later withdrawing it on technical grounds.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed against a trial court order setting aside the summoning of the accused in a forgery case.
Title: RAMBIR SINGH.GOLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition filed by a husband seeking Rs. 100 crore compensation, a judicial enquiry and fixation of accountability over the death of his wife, an Indian citizen, during violent civil unrest in Kathmandu, Nepal, in September 2025.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was informed by the husband's counsel that he was restricting the relief to seeking a declaration on the violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the Union Government must formulate a protocol for Indians travelling to sensitive nations.
Case title: Bachu Singh v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation under Section 469 CrPC begins from the date on which the police officer acquires knowledge of the commission of an offence, and not from a later date when the FIR is formally registered.
Title: Union of India v. Sameer Wankhede
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashing the disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the plea filed by the Central Government challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on January 19.
Case title: UoI v. Brijendra Kumar Sharma & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court has refused to restore a writ petition filed by the Union of India, holding that government departments are not entitled to any preferential or lenient treatment in matters of delay and procedural defaults.
Justice Renu Bhatnagar also dismissed the Centre's application seeking condonation of a 395-days delay and restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution on three separate occasions.
Case title: NS v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot be permitted to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC in India after having accepted a divorce decree and monetary settlement passed by a competent court in the United States.
Case title: Aviation Services LLC v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court has held that the subsequent denial of bail to co-accused persons cannot, by itself, be treated as a “supervening circumstance” warranting cancellation of bail already granted to an accused, in the absence of any allegation that the accused has misused the liberty granted by the court.
Title: THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court deferred implementation of Delhi government's mandate to private schools to constitute a school level fee regulation committee (SLFRC) for the upcoming academic session.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was dealing with a petitions filed by various school associations, including the Forum of Minority Schools and the Forum for Promotion of Quality Education for All, assailing the notification issued by the Delhi Government on February 01.
Case title: Mohan Tanksale v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the Central Bank of India and its senior officials, holding that a bank can adjust the amount deposited under a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme if the borrower defaults on the settlement terms.
Title: Uday Chib v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 251
In granting interim relief to Uday Bhanu Chib, President of the Indian Youth Congress, the Delhi High Court stayed a Sessions Court order which had put on hold the bail granted to him by a Magistrate in connection with the shirtless protest at the recent India AI Impact Summit, observing that the impugned order reflected no application of mind.
Title: KARTIK & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The Delhi High Court has held that two consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats and interference from family members, reiterating that the right to choose a partner flows from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Employee Governed By CCS Pension Rules Can't Claim Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act : Delhi HC
Case Name : Vimla Singh EX PGT History v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 253
The Delhi High Court has held that an employee governed by statutory rules providing for gratuity (such as CCS (Pension) Rules) is excluded from the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and therefore cannot claim gratuity under the 1972 Act. Further it was held that resignation results in forfeiture of past service hence, employee will be disentitled from pension and gratuity.
Case title: Ram Kumar Pathak v. Shashi Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere allegation that a person was involved in the “day-to-day business activities” of a company is not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in cheque dishonour cases.
Case title: Sanyogita Gupta & Ors v. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application, and not from a later date, unless the court records cogent reasons for deviating from the general rule.
Title: RAVJEET SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an accused is smart in responding to the questions of the interrogator cannot mean that he is not cooperating in the interrogation.
Setting Aside Or Modifying Trial Court Order Not Reflection On Judge's Integrity: Delhi High Court
Title: SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an order passed by a trial court is set aside or modified by a higher court, no inference can be drawn regarding the competence, integrity, or ability of the judicial officer concerned, unless specific adverse observations to that effect are recorded.
Title: MINOR CHILD K & ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has emphasised that child victims and other vulnerable witnesses must not be repeatedly summoned during trial proceedings, observing that the criminal process itself should not become a source of further trauma for victims of sexual offences.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that while the victim must be given an opportunity to present her objections to the grant of bail, her presence should not be insisted upon repeatedly once her views, in respect of bail plea of the accused, have been recorded.
Title: SHRI BALAJI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere good conduct of an individual after conviction is no ground to reduce the electoral disqualification period prescribed under Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice Amit Bansal said if such a stand is accepted, it would dilute the mandate of the provision which prescribes for disqualification of a person for certain offences.
Title: DIMPY CHUGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court has observed that subsequent bail applications arising from the same FIR should ordinarily be listed before the same judge who had rejected an earlier bail plea, in order to avoid conflicting or inconsistent orders.
“…. the Registry of this Court is bound to act in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is in compliance with the aforesaid position of law that matters arising out of the same FIR, particularly applications seeking bail, whether anticipatory or regular, are ordinarily listed before the same Bench/Judge who had earlier decided the previous bail application of the accused and who continues to hold the criminal roster,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case title: ED v. M/S Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court has held that property purchased from the proceeds of crime prior to the coming into force of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) can still be attached under the Act if the accused continues to remain in possession of the property after the law came into effect.
Case title: State v. Shiv Shanker
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court has convicted a truck driver for causing the death of a two-year-old child in a road accident, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and holding that the circumstances of the accident themselves indicated negligence.
Title: HIMAYANI PURI v. KUNAL SHUKLA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Himayani Puri, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's daughter, seeking a global take down of posts linking her to American financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered social media platforms like Twitter, Google, YouTube, Meta and LinkedIn and other john doe entities to take down the allegedly defamatory content against the Cabinet Minister's daughter.
Case Name : Ghunna Ram v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 264
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that where eligibility rules are ambiguous, they must be interpreted in favour of the candidate, and the one-year discharge period for Ex-Servicemen should be counted from the date of exam results, not the last date of application for exam.
Case title: SSC v. Yashpal Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing a fresh medical examination of a candidate who had been declared medically unfit during the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).
Case title: Padmaja Kumari Parmar v. Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar And Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 266
Marking a significant development in the ongoing succession dispute within the Mewar royal family, the Delhi High Court has declined a plea filed by Mewar princess Padmaja Kumari Parmar seeking Letters of Administration over the estate of her late father, Arvind Singh Mewar.
Asking Wife To Assist Family Or Stay With In-Laws Not Cruelty Under S.498A IPC: Delhi High Court
Case title: SP v. LT
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has held that asking a wife to assist in caring for family members or to stay with in-laws cannot, by itself, amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Case title: Hindustan Scouts And Guides Association Through Its National Secretary Champat Singh & Anr. v. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railways
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 268
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Railways to extend the benefit of recruitment under the Scouts and Guides quota to the Hindustan Scouts and Guides Association, holding that denial of such benefit was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Stays Trial Against Bina Modi In Case Over Alleged Assault On Samir Modi
Title: Bina Modi v. State & Anr and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 269
The Delhi High Court stayed the trial court proceedings initiated against industrialist Bina Modi and senior lawyer Lalit Bhasin in connection with an alleged assault of Godfrey Philips India (GPI) executive director Samir Modi during a board meeting in 2024.
Title: SB TRIPATHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 270
The Delhi High Court has directed the authorities to ensure that video conferencing facilities for hybrid hearings are made functional in all District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across the national capital within eight weeks.
Case title: Veer Pal v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has observed that suicide is increasingly a “problem of the civilised world”, often driven by stress, social pressures and breakdown of support systems, while convicting a man for abetting the suicide of his wife.
Case title: Ajay @ Shantu v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 272
More than two decades after a “daredevil attack” on a police officer, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man who stabbed a head constable in retaliation for being intercepted during a prior police operation.
Case title: Rajinder Kumar v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a former clerk of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) in a corruption case dating back to 1994, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded or accepted a bribe.
Title: Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 274
The Delhi High Court directed Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Publications to delete and take down defamatory content against Sadhguru's Isha Foundation.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also dismissed the application filed by the publication under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the defamation suit filed by Isha Foundation.
Title: ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR) v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 275
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to take all necessary action to ensure that public life is not disrupted during Eid Festivities, in connection with an incident which took place in Uttam Nagar following the killing of a 26-year-old man in a clash during Holi.
The court further directed the Police to make arrangements which should "instil essence of security and safety to all" and further directed the authorities to ensure that "no one" from any section of society is permitted to cause "mischief having the potential of creating any untoward situation".
Title: KANWARJEET SINGH BATTH v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 276
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order recommending extradition of a Punjab-based man to the United Kingdom in a murder case, holding that the “critical link” that he stabbed the deceased with knife remained a matter of “inference and conjecture”, with no direct evidence.
Title: PROF SUJATA ASHWARYA v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 277
The Delhi High Court has observed that a safe and secure environment for women at the workplace is not to be understood in a narrow sense and includes conditions that enable them to work with dignity, decency and due respect.
Title: Newslaundry v. TV Today Network Pvt Ltd & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 278
The Delhi High Court directed digital platform Newslaundry to remove and take down its statements containing disparaging content against TV Today, which owns news channels India Today and Aaj Tak.
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that Newslaundry's remarks calling TV Today's content as “shit show” and “high on weed or opium” constituted disparagement.
Delhi High Court Quashes CBI Look Out Circulars Against NDTV Founders Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 279
The Delhi High Court on Friday quashed the Look Out Circulars (LOC) opened by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against NDTV's former directors and promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy in 2019.
Title: HARIS NISAR LANGOO v. NIA and ZAMIN ADIL BHAT v. NIA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 280
The Delhi High Court granted bail to two accused in a terror conspiracy case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, observing that their prolonged incarceration of over four years and the limited role attributed to them justified conditional release pending trial.
Title: GULAM NABI v. STATE (THROUGH SHO PS KHAJURI KHAS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused booked in a case involving allegations of sexual assault, cruelty and domestic violence, while also expressing serious concern over the failure of the Delhi Police to file a status report despite repeated opportunities.
Title: WASIM AKHTAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court refused to grant regular bail to an accused booked in a case registered under the POCSO Act, observing that a girl being friendly with a boy on Valentines Day is no licence to establish forceful sexual relations with her.
Case title: Habibur Molla @ Sonu v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 283
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case, holding that failure to inform the grounds of arrest to the accused vitiates the arrest as well as the subsequent remand proceedings.
Victim's Negligence No Ground To Deny Compensation In Railway Accident: Delhi High Court
Case title: Dharamawati v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 284
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that negligence on the part of a victim is not a ground to deny compensation in cases of railway accidents, holding that once an “untoward incident” is established, the liability of the Railways is strict under the Railways Act, 1989.
Case title: Manjay Kumar v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), observing that the quantity of contraband could not be precisely determined as the seized contraband was weighed along with dried leaves, branches and grass-like substances, which may not fall within the statutory definition of “ganja”.
Case title: Rajnesh Singh v. MCD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court has observed that street vendors have a “bounden duty” to maintain cleanliness around their vending sites and ensure that they do not encroach upon public spaces or obstruct pedestrian movement.
Encashment Of Cheque In Lieu Of Notice Bars Challenge To Termination Of Services: Delhi High Court
Case title: Pankaj Vaid v. ICICI Bank
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court has held that an employee who accepts and encashes payment made in lieu of the notice period cannot subsequently challenge the termination of their services.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by a former employee of ICICI Bank, who had sought reinstatement and damages alleging that his termination was arbitrary and illegal.
Case title: Aam Janata Unnayan Party v. ECI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 288
The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider a representation seeking reduction of the 30-day notice period prescribed for registration of a political party, in a plea filed by a party floated by expelled Trinamool Congress leader Humayun Kabir.
Case title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Jyoti Sikka
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 289
The Delhi High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased tenant who were not financially dependent on the tenant cannot claim continued protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act beyond a period of one year from the tenant's death.
'Public Land Can't Be Held Hostage': Delhi High Court In UNI News Agency Case
Case title: United News of India v. Union Of India Through Land And Development Officer Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 290
The Delhi High Court while upholding the cancellation of land allotted to United News of India (UNI) in the city's prominent Central Delhi area, observed that public land cannot be “held hostage” by a defaulting licensee who failed to fulfil the very purpose for which the allotment was granted.
Case title: PJ v. N
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has held that a marriage which was neither consummated nor involved any meaningful cohabitation cannot be said to have taken shape in any real sense, and in such circumstances, insisting on the statutory waiting period for divorce would serve no purpose.
Case title: Manish Yadav v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a Cheating FIR, observing that while a mediation settlement does not absolve criminal liability, it remains a relevant factor while considering bail.
Title: SONAKSHI SINHA v. CHARACTER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actress Sonakshi Sinha.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained several artificial intelligence platforms and online retailers from unauthorisedly using her name, likeness, voice and other personality attributes.
Title: PRESIDENT, INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR v. SKI AND SNOWBOARD INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 294
The Delhi High Court upheld a Single Judge's decision quashing the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) move to appoint an ad-hoc committee to manage the affairs of Ski and Snowboard India.
Universities Must Foster Free Thought And Expression, Not Suppress Dissent: Delhi High Court
Title: NADIA v. DR B R AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court has observed that a University cannot restrict speech and peaceful expression of ideas merely because the views expressed by a group of students do not align with the ideology of the management.
Title: JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF DELHI v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court called for a meeting between the authorities on the aspect of providing adequate security arrangements for judicial officers in the national capital.
Justice Manoj Jain directed that senior competent officials of the Delhi Government, Delhi Police and Ministry of Home Affairs hold a meeting in this regard within a week.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash CBI FIR Against RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land For Jobs Scam
Title: SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 297
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea moved by RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash the corruption case related to the alleged land for jobs scam case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case title: Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 298
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue relating to the stage of taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the timing of issuance of notice to the accused under its first proviso.
For context, Section 223 pertains to examination of the complainant. The provision states that a magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. It adds that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as well as by the Magistrate. The first proviso states that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
Case title: Rohan Book Company Private Limited v. Sachin Tyagi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 299
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of disclosure of confidential business information by an employee, even if assumed to be true, would at best constitute a breach of contractual obligations and not amount to defamation in the absence of any defamatory imputation made to third parties.
Delhi High Court Acquits Sonu Punjaban In Trafficking Case, Finds Prosecutrix's Testimony Unreliable
Case title: Geeta Arora @ Sonu Punjaban v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 300
The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of Geeta Arora, popularly known as Sonu Punjaban, in a case involving allegations of trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix.
Delhi High Court Passes Interim Order Protecting Personality Rights Of Gautam Gambhir
Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 301
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir.
Justice Jyoti Singh said that as one of the “most decorated cricketers of this country”, he has the right to “protect his name, likeness and all other attributes of his personality and no third party has a right to use these attributes without his consent/authorisation”.
Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning Of Sanctioning Authority Before Charge Stage In Corruption Case
Case title: State v. Vikram Singh Meena
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 302
The Delhi High Court has upheld the summoning of the sanctioning authority at the pre-charge stage in a corruption case, holding that courts are not barred from examining the validity of sanction before the commencement of trial where the facts so warrant.
Case title: Amit Goel & Anr. v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 303
The Delhi High Court has held that once a Magistrate accepts a cancellation or untraced report filed by the police, the court becomes functus officio and cannot thereafter proceed to examine alleged lapses in investigation or direct action against police officials.
Case title: Pradeep Batra v. Kuldip Singh Verma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 304
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to grant specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell, observed that rising property prices make adherence to timelines crucial in property transactions.
Illegal Termination Doesn't Automatically Warrant Reinstatement Or Back Wages: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S.Thermoking v. P.O.& Rashtriya Gen.Maz.Union
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 305
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a finding of illegal termination does not automatically entitle a workman to reinstatement or back wages.
Justice Shail Jain thus refused to grant reinstatement and back wages to workmen illegally terminated by a proprietorship firm, citing lapse of time particularly when several workmen had already reached the age of superannuation and had not diligently pursued the proceedings.
Case title: Manish Popli v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 306
The Delhi High Court has quashed a proclamation order declaring an Australian citizen as a “proclaimed person” along with the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, holding that no proper effort was made to serve him while he was residing abroad.
Case title: Preeti Singh v. Principal Judge
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 307
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) raising concerns over the practice of judges in Family Courts conducting in-chamber mediation and thereafter adjudicating the same disputes.
Case title: Ms Shalu Pruthi v. KVS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 308
The Delhi High Court, while upholding the transfer of a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) teacher, has held that bipolar disorder, in the absence of certification of benchmark disability, does not qualify under the medical disability clause of the applicable transfer policy.
Case title: Hanuman Prasad Sharma @ H.P. Sharma v. J. Mithyleshwar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 309
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an objection to territorial jurisdiction is deemed to be waived if it is not raised at the earliest stage, particularly before the framing of issues, setting aside a trial court order that had returned the plaint on such grounds.
Case title: PK Varun v. PNB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 310
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of management witnesses in a banking disciplinary enquiry does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings if the findings are supported by documentary records.
Case title: Shravan Gupta v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 312
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging the impounding of a passport, holding that the matter warranted consideration in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Woman Gets 10-Year Jail For Facilitating Rape, Delhi High Court Cites Continued Criminal Conduct
Case title: State v. Sweety
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 313
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a woman to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for facilitating the commission of rape, while emphasising her continued involvement in criminal activities as a key factor in denying leniency.
Case title: Rajat Verma v. HP Suman
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 314
The Delhi High Court has held that a tenant cannot evade legal liability by claiming that he is not personally residing in the rented premises, holding that occupation by family members continues to constitute juridical possession of the tenant.
No Deemed Continuity Of Expired Driving Licence After 2019 MV Act Amendment: Delhi High Court
Case title: Delhi Police & Anr. v. Sudheer Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 315
The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no deemed continuity of a driving licence after its expiry under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, and that a licence holder becomes legally incompetent to drive from the very next day of expiry unless the licence is renewed.
Case title: Tulsi Das v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 316
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a railway accident compensation claim, holding that even the grievous injury of losing both hands cannot substitute proof of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
Case title: Smt. Bindu Sharma v. Kapil Sud And Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has held that an amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted to retract clear admissions that confer valuable rights on the opposite party, thereby setting aside an order which had allowed a defendant to substantially alter his written statement after more than four years.
Case title: Rajeev Miglani v. Urmil Gujral & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has held that a buyer under an earlier transaction is entitled to challenge and seek cancellation of a subsequent sale of the same property by the same seller, affirming that such later deals cannot override prior rights.
Case Name : Jaideep Kumar V. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 319
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that in departmental proceedings, the guilt of an employee can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence and initial statements made during a preliminary inquiry, even if the key witnesses subsequently turn hostile during the departmental enquiry.
Delhi High Court Acquits Life Convicts In Decade-Old Murder Case, Flags Unreliable Eyewitness
Case title: Virender Alias Bablu v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 320
The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence of two men in a 2016 murder case, holding that the prosecution's case rested on an unreliable eyewitness whose testimony did not inspire confidence.
Case title: Nisha Chandola & Anr v. Manoj Sharma And Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 321
The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the growing misuse of perjury proceedings, observing that applications under Section 340 CrPC are increasingly being filed to “arm-twist” opponents and delay trials, rather than to address genuine instances of false evidence.
Title: ABUBACKER E v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 322
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an order shifting former Popular Front of India (PFI) Chief E Abubacker to a private multi specialty hospital of his choice for his medical treatment.
Title: PREM SHEELA KUMARI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 323
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Delhi Government's decision denying ex-gratia compensation to the kin of a government school Vice Principal who succumbed to COVID-19 during the second wave.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the plea filed by the widow of late Dr. Raja Ram Singh and directed the authorities to release ₹Rs. 1 crore compensation under the Delhi Government's COVID relief scheme within six weeks.
Title: VISHWAJYOTI v. VIRENDER KUMAR SARDANA & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 324
The Delhi High Court has held that a recognised private school cannot be treated as “closed in law” merely because it stopped functioning without obtaining prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE), and that such unilateral cessation does not extinguish employees' salary and service rights.