Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 01 To June 07, 2026
Nupur Thapliyal
8 Jun 2026 1:23 PM IST
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 552 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 558
NOMINAL INDEX
LAKSH VIR SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 552
SK v. KS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 553
AKKINENI NAGA CHAITANYA v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 554
SANDEEP @ SUNNY v. STATE & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 555
SHEWTA TUTEJA & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 556
Devangana Kalita v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 557
Raman Gandhi v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 558
Title: LAKSH VIR SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sachin Datta laid down the framework governing de-indexing and masking of personal information from judicial records available online.
Justice Datta decided a batch of petitions filed by various individuals who had been acquitted, discharged, parties to matrimonial disputes, or whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records, seeking removal of links, masking of identities, or de-indexing of judicial records from internet search results.
Title: SK v. KS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 553
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory one-year waiting period for filing a divorce petition under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, can be waived in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the marriage would only prolong the parties' hardship.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar allowed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking waiver of the statutory period prescribed under Section 29 read with Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act.
Title: AKKINENI NAGA CHAITANYA v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court passed an ex parte ad interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained several websites, online sellers and unidentified persons from exploiting the actor's name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes through pornographic content, AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.
Title: SANDEEP @ SUNNY v. STATE & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over delays in registration of FIRs in cases involving the unnatural death of young married women.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma urged the courts to give greater urgency to pleas seeking registration of FIRs where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to act within time.
“This Court hopes that, in future, applications seeking directions for registration of FIR, concerning the unnatural death of a young woman within a short period of marriage, particularly where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to register an FIR, shall be taken up with greater urgency by the Courts and be listed on shorter dates so that the issue of registration of FIR and commencement of investigation is not left unresolved for months together,” the Court said.
ART Act Is Regulatory, Not Meant To Create Insurmountable Barriers To Parenthood: Delhi High Court
Title: SHEWTA TUTEJA & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, is fundamentally regulatory in character and is not meant to create insurmountable barriers defeating legitimate continuation of treatment processes already lawfully undertaken.
“This Court is also conscious of the fact that reproductive rights and access to parenthood in the contemporary constitutional jurisprudence cannot be reduced to purely technical or pedantic application of statutory conditions divorced from factual context in which such rights are asserted,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Case Title: Devangana Kalita v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court vacated its 2024 interim order restraining the trial court from passing any final order on framing of charges against the accused persons in relation to the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy into 2020 North East Delhi riots.
For context, the trial court is at the final stages of reserving the matter on framing of charges in the larger conspiracy case. While all the accused have concluded their arguments, the Delhi Police has to make its rejoinder submissions.
However, the Court allowed another plea filed by Kalita seeking permission to inspect unrelied documents stored in the malkhana.
Case : Raman Gandhi v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 558
The Delhi High Court has refused to order a fresh election to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), holding that the discovery of tampered ballot papers during counting did not vitiate the entire electoral process and therefore did not warrant a re-poll.
The Court upheld the decision of the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee (HPESC), which had directed that counting recommence from the stage of second-preference vote counting after the ballot-tampering incident came to light.
