Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 782 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 792
NOMINAL INDEX
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 782
DR RAJ SHEKHAWAT v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 783
DELHI PROSECUTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION v/s STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 784
PARINAY SHARMA v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 785
INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOCIATION v/s UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 786
ADITYA SINGH & ORS. v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 787
RAKESH BANSAL AND ORS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 788
SH. HARI NATH SHARMA v/s SH. UMESH KUMAR & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 789
Nivedika Ojha v. Union Of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 790
MANIK CHAND & ORS. v/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 791
PINAKI MISRA v. STATE & ANR. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 792
Case title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court has directed the DDA to convene a meeting with other authorities over redevelopment of 25 non-confirming industrial areas in the city, observing that the redevelopment work was necessary to ensure that untreated sewage water does not flow into the Yamuna river.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in its order said that the work for re-development of 25 non-confirming industrial areas was to commence pursuant to several orders passed by the Court.
Case title: DR RAJ SHEKHAWAT v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court has said that while President of Kshatriya Karni Sena Dr. Raj Shekhawat is free to move around, however if he wishes to participate in any protest the same must be in accordance with law.
The court passed the order while hearing habeas corpus plea seeking production of President of Kshatriya Karni Sena/Akhand Karni Party Dr. Raj Shekhawat, wherein it was alleged that he had been illegally confined.
Case title: DELHI PROSECUTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION v/s STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to decide within four weeks a representation filed by Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association objecting to requirement of biometric attendance of public prosecutors.
The court was hearing a plea moved by the Association seeking directions to quash Delhi Government circulars on mandatory biometric attendance of public prosecutors or in the alternative, keep the implementation of the Circulars in abeyance and introduce a practical and court-centric attendance mechanism for Public Prosecutors.
Case title: PARINAY SHARMA v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 5 Lakh cost on a PIL litigant seeking disclosure of information on divestment of Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd's (IFCI) shareholding in National Stock Exchange of India Limited, observing that petitioner had suppressed pendency of another plea with overlapping issues before the Bombay High Court.
Case title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOCIATION v/s UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 786
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to decide within two months a plea by Indian Professional Nurses Association seeking expeditious constitution of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission.
The petitioner had sought a direction to the Centre to constitute, execute and implement the provisions of National Nursing and Midwifery Commission (NNMC) in terms of Section 3 of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission Act, 2023. It had also sought a direction to the Centre to repeal the Respondent no.2 body - Indian Nursing Council in terms of Section 56 of the Act as delay in constitution of NNMC is arbitrary, discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India when commissions of other healthcare professionals have been constituted.
Case title: ADITYA SINGH & ORS. v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court has observed that purpose of 3-year LL.M. course is to enable students to continue practice before Courts while simultaneously pursuing their Masters program.
In doing so the court permitted a lawyer to appear in his second semester LLM exam at Delhi University after he was earlier prohibited for not completing the mandatory attendance requirement.
Case title: RAKESH BANSAL AND ORS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has granted six weeks to residents of three slum clusters located near the Prime Minister's residence in the Race Course area to vacate the premises and move to a DUSIB Colony at Savda Ghevra where alternative accommodation has been provided by the authorities.
Case title: SH. HARI NATH SHARMA v/s SH. UMESH KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court has held that a barber hit by a vehicle while running his shop on a footpath cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence to reduce amount of accident compensation he is entitled to.
Case Name : Nivedika Ojha v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 790
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a cut-off date for age eligibility in competitive exams is not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 merely because it is not 1 January, as the executive has wide discretion to fix such dates.
Street Vendors Can't Claim Fixed Sites Under Provisional Certificate Of Vending: Delhi High Court
Case title: MANIK CHAND & ORS. v/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has street vendors cannot claim to vend on fixed or stationary vending sites under a provisional certificate of vending, and asked the MCD to verify whether 42 vendors who had approached the court even possessed a provisional certificate of vending.
Case title: PINAKI MISRA v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 792
The Delhi High Court has quashed a 2019 criminal defamation case against senior advocate Pinaki Misra over allegations of calling the complainant a "crook‟ and a "black mailer" in an interview to a news portal.
It was alleged that the complainant had filed a complaint with Bar Council of Delhi in 2018 against the petitioner, alleging that Misra's appearance on behalf of power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal amounted to professional misconduct. On 26.08.2018, an article was published in a newspaper regarding this complaint.