Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 648 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 661
NOMINAL INDEX
ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. META PLATFORMS & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 648
Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 649
ABHISHEK SHARMA v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 650
ED v. MS VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ORS GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Santosh Tiwari v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 652
Ritu Gauba v. Commissioner of Police 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653
XXX v. YYY 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 654
Savitri Devi v. Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 655
E TRAV TECH LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 656
State v. K 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 657
Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 658
ABID ALI @ AABI v. State & other connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 659
GNCTD v. Manu & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 660
GITANJALI J. ANGMO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 661
Delhi High Court Directs Take Down Of Facebook Links Unauthorizedly Hosting Zee Content
Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. META PLATFORMS & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court on Monday passed a john doe order directing take down and removal of various URLs on Facebook unauthorizedly hosting content of Zee.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the ex parte ad interim order in a suit filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited against various Facebook profiles uploading and hosting its content without any authorisation.
Case Title: Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has observed that a trial court erred in not awarding a separate sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) in a case involving sexual assault on a six-year-old girl, clarifying that the provision is not among the IPC offences covered by Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Title: ABHISHEK SHARMA v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma restraining several social media accounts, online sellers and e-commerce platforms from using his name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes without his consent.
Title: ED v. MS VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ORS GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has refused permission to Vivo executive Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew, an accused in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case against Vivo Mobile Communication, to travel to Guangzhou, China to visit his critically ill father.
Justice Madhu Jain observed that humanitarian considerations cannot override the need to secure the presence of an accused facing prosecution in a case involving alleged proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 2 lakh crores.
Case title: Santosh Tiwari v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 652
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a temple priest for rape of an intellectually disabled woman, describing his conduct as a “satanic and unholy deed” that shattered not only the victim's dignity but also the sanctity of the temple and the trust reposed in the priesthood.
Dismissing the convict's appeal, the Court observed that the victim's family had initially attempted to suppress the incident owing to their religious beliefs and the priest's promise to leave the temple, but were eventually “woken up from the spell of the opium of Marxist influence” by his betrayal and the outrage suffered by their daughter.
Title: Ritu Gauba v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking registration of FIR against all MPs, as well as Union Minister Amit Shah and LoP Rahul Gandhi for failing to notify Section 106(2) of Bharitiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The provision defines penalty for hit-and-run incidents, where a driver causes death by rash and negligent driving and flees the scene without reporting the incident to the police or a Magistrate.
Case title: XXX v. YYY
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife is entitled to continue receiving interim maintenance during the pendency of appeal against divorce decree under Hindu Marriage Act 1955, observing that an appeal is merely a continuation of the original matrimonial proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar directed an Army officer to continue paying interim maintenance to his wife at the rate of 30% of his gross salary, after statutory deductions, during the pendency of her appeal challenging the dissolution of their marriage.
Case title: Savitri Devi v. Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 655
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the benefit of family pension scheme to the widow of a deceased Bank of Maharashtra employee, observing that the beneficial nature of a welfare scheme does not permit courts to disregard its express terms and conditions.
Delhi High Court Quashes MEA's Consular, Passport And Visa Service Tenders For Four Indian Missions
Title: E TRAV TECH LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 656
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the Ministry of External Affairs' (MEA) tender process for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra (Australia).
A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain held that the technical evaluation of bidders was arbitrary, opaque and violative of the principles of fairness and transparency.
Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Teacher Accused In Janakpuri School Rape Case
Case title: State v. K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 657
The Delhi High Court has set aside the bail granted to a teacher accused in the Janakpuri school rape case involving the alleged sexual assault of a three-year-old nursery student.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that a child of such tender age cannot be expected to disclose every detail of the incident at the first instance and that the victim's subsequent statements and identification of the accused could not be ignored merely because the teacher was not named in the initial complaint.
Title: Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 658
The Delhi High Court directed the Centre to ensure daily clinical monitoring of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who is on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, and observed that any medical intervention required to improve his deteriorating health should be undertaken by the government.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the direction while hearing a public interest litigation seeking urgent medical intervention for Wangchuk.
Title: ABID ALI @ AABI v. State & other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has observed that while freedom of the press is an indispensable pillar of democracy, it cannot be used as a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or dissemination of content that jeopardises public order.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that with the proliferation of social media, virtually anyone armed with a mobile phone and microphone now claims to be a “reporter”, often without journalistic training, ethical grounding or accountability.
Case title: GNCTD v. Manu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has held that possession of a Master's degree does not automatically make a candidate eligible for a post requiring a Bachelor's degree in the same subject.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar thus set aside a CAT order directing the appointment of certain candidates as Domestic Science Teachers (TGTs) in Delhi government schools.
Case : GITANJALI J. ANGMO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 661
Hearing A plea moved by activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, the Delhi High Court refused to pass any interim order allowing him to be shifted to a private hospital of his own choice.
The High Court did not find the Government's decision to shift him to a hospital from the Jantar Mantar protest site - where he had been holding a hunger strike since June 28- to be "an arbitrary action."