#delhi_high_court

Delhi Police Conducts Secret Operation to Remove Sonam Wangchuk from Jantar-Mantar Delhi Police executed a highly secretive and meticulously planned operation on Saturday morning to remove Sonam Wangchuk from the Jantar-Mantar protest site. According to sources, the strategy was finalized during the first high-level meeting after the new police chief assumed command. The operation was limited to a select group of senior officials to ensure discretion. Wangchuk, who had been fasting at the protest site for the past 20 days, was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the early hours of Saturday. The police stated that this move was necessitated by his deteriorating health and directives from the Delhi High Court. However, the planning of the operation was described as both covert and well-orchestrated. Senior police sources revealed that the decision to act was made during the initial meeting under the new chief. The operation was timed for a period when the protest site had the fewest people present, minimizing the risk of confrontation. Additionally, Wangchuk’s close associate, Abhijit Dipak, was temporarily absent from the site, which facilitated the move. The operation was divided into three phases. In the first phase, plainclothes police officers secured the platform and covered Wangchuk’s bed with white sheets to prevent panic among the crowd. He was then carefully lifted and transported to an ambulance. In the second phase, CRPF and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel took control of the barricades to manage the protesters and prevent any potential clashes. The third phase involved senior officers monitoring the entire operation from a control point, ensuring the smooth movement of ambulances and police vehicles.#delhi_police #delhi_high_court #sonam_wangchuk #jantar_mantar #abhijit_dipak

Cockroach Janta Party Founder Announces Hunger Strike Amid Sonam Wangchuk Hospitalization On Saturday, July 18, 2026, Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party, announced an indefinite hunger strike, following the hospitalization of educator and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. Wangchuk, who had been fasting at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar for 21 days, was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital under the orders of the Delhi High Court and at the request of medical experts due to his deteriorating health. The Delhi Police cited “essential medical care” as the reason for the transfer, which occurred shortly after Dipke’s own release from detention. Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, confirmed his admission to Safdarjung Hospital, emphasizing that no medical treatment should be administered without her consent or the approval of his doctors, who have monitored his health for 20 days. She stated, “Nothing should be administered to him orally or intravenously without take consent from me, his family, and his doctors.” The hospital noted that Wangchuk’s condition, exacerbated by prolonged fasting and dehydration, required continuous monitoring and treatment to stabilize his body parameters. Dipke, addressing protesters at Jantar Mantar, condemned the Delhi Police and the BJP government for forcibly moving Wangchuk to the hospital, calling it an “antic” by “RSS goons.” He vowed to continue the protest, declaring, “We will stay right here. And we will march to Parliament from right here on July 20.” His remarks were met with heightened security measures, including barricades and paramilitary forces deployed to manage the protest site and prevent disruptions. The incident sparked widespread political backlash.#delhi_high_court #sonam_wangchuk #abhijeet_dipke #gitanjali_j_angmo #safdarjung_hospital

Government Doctor To Monitor Sonam Wangchuk, Says High Court As Hunger Strike Enters Day 19 The Delhi High Court has directed the government to ensure the health and safety of activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on an indefinite hunger strike for 19 days. The court’s order comes amid growing concerns over his deteriorating condition, with legal representatives warning that he may not survive the next 48 hours if he does not break his fast. The activist, 59, is protesting against Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, whom he accuses of failing to address allegations of leaked question papers for competitive exams, including the May 3 NEET-UG examination. The court’s ruling followed a plea filed by Wangchuk’s supporters, which highlighted his significant weight loss of 8.5 kilograms and urged authorities to take immediate medical action. The petition emphasized that the government’s inaction could lead to a “matter of great shame for the country and the world.” The court responded by ordering daily medical check-ups by government doctors, with intervention required if his condition worsens. It stressed that “the life of any citizen is precious” and that all efforts must be made to save his life. During the hearing, the government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, admitted that while daily health check-ups are being conducted, the doctors involved are not always from state-run institutions. Mehta acknowledged that private physicians sometimes provide care, prompting the court to insist that Wangchuk receive regular monitoring from government medical professionals. The court also emphasized that any necessary medical intervention, including force-feeding if required, should be carried out without delay.#delhi_high_court #sonam_wangchuk #dharmendra_pradhan #cockroach_janta_party #neetug

Delhi High Court Orders 15-Day Decision on Removal of YouTube Video Alleged to Defame Hindu Deities The Delhi High Court has directed the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to decide within 15 days whether to remove a YouTube video uploaded by content creator Dr. Druv Rathi, which is alleged to defame Hindu deities and provoke religious sentiments. The video, titled "Can Hindus Eat BEEF? Kerala Story 2 Exposed," has sparked controversy over its claims about ancient Hindu scriptures and the dietary practices of deities like Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. The court’s order came after the central government filed a petition against Rathi, alleging that the video promotes misinformation and insults religious beliefs. The petition, filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, argues that the content is offensive, inflammatory, and potentially harmful to Hindu communities. Sachdeva has also filed a criminal case against Rathi, accusing him of spreading content that could incite communal tensions. The video in question, uploaded on March 21, discusses the dietary habits of Hindu deities, citing ancient texts to suggest that figures like Lord Rama and Lord Krishna consumed meat. Rathi’s argument hinges on interpreting classical Hindu scriptures to justify such practices. However, the petition challenges this interpretation, asserting that the video misrepresents religious traditions and could cause significant distress to followers. During the court hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma emphasized that the video’s content is derogatory toward Hindu deities and cannot be tolerated. He argued that the video’s claims could undermine religious harmony and urged the GAC to act swiftly.#delhi_high_court #chetan_sharma #government_advisory_committee #dr_druv_rathi #amita_sachdeva

Delhi HC issues notice of MCD Junior Engineer seeking anticipatory bail in corruption case The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the CBI to provide a status report on a plea filed by Navdeep Khatri, a Junior Engineer (JE) with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case. Khatri’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court last week, prompting him to approach the high court. The court issued notice to the CBI and scheduled the matter for hearing on July 3. The case revolves around allegations of bribery tied to construction activities in the GB Road area. An FIR was filed on May 4 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Khatri, accusing him of allegedly demanding Rs 2 lakh from a builder to expedite construction on an unauthorized property. The complaint alleges that the builder, Lokesh, approached Khatri during the development of a property in Annar Wali Gali, Katra Gafoor Baksh, Mohalla Nihariyan, G.B. Road, Delhi, and demanded the bribe. The FIR claims that Lokesh threatened to involve Khatri in the matter if the payment was not made. Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the case, ordered the CBI to submit a detailed report on the investigation’s progress. The court also directed the matter to be heard by the concerned bench. Senior advocate N Hariharan, along with Bharat Gupta, Sujeet Beniwal, Tushar Rohmetra, and Siddharth Yadav, represented Khatri. The legal team argued that Khatri has no role in the allegations and that the FIR fails to establish his involvement in the alleged crime. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that Khatri has been instructed by the MCD to cooperate in the investigation but faces apprehension of arrest due to inquiries by police officials in his neighborhood.#central_bureau_of_investigation #delhi_high_court #mcd #navdeep_khatri #lokesh

Anjana Om Kashyap Files ₹2 Crore Defamation Case Against Khan Sir and 4PM News in Delhi High Court Anjana Om Kashyap, a prominent journalist and media personality, has filed a defamation case worth ₹2 crore in the Delhi High Court against Khan Sir, 4PM News, and several other defendants. The case, listed for hearing on June 8 before the vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, alleges that the defendants engaged in a coordinated campaign to defame Kashyap and her organization, India Today. The suit seeks the removal of defamatory content, an order to cease further posts, and compensation for damages. The legal action was initiated after Kashyap hosted a debate on Aaj Tak on May 29, 2026, during which she critiqued the growing influence of online "star teachers" and the commercialization of education. She argued that her remarks were part of a fair journalistic discussion on a matter of national importance. However, the suit claims that this sparked a sustained campaign by defendants with significant social media followings, targeting Kashyap and her network between May 30 and June 4. The defendants, including prominent educators like Abhinay Sharma, Babita Tyagi, and Arvind Bhadauriya, as well as X handles and the 4PM News Network, are accused of using abusive and scandalous language to subject Kashyap to insults, ridicule, and public hostility. The suit alleges that these actions were entirely unrelated to any legitimate public debate. Additionally, Khan Sir is specifically named for publicly disclosing information about the school attended by Kashyap’s child, which she claims was irrelevant to the controversy and exposed her family to harassment, unwanted attention, and security risks.#delhi_high_court #khan_sir #anjana_om_kashyap #4pm_news #abhinay_sharma

Journalist Anjana Om Kashyap Files Defamation Suit Against Faisal Khan in Delhi High Court A defamation lawsuit has been filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap against Faisal Khan before the Delhi High Court, alleging that his remarks during a public debate on the NEET exam system constituted defamatory content. The case, titled ANJANA OM KASHYAP & ANR v. FAISAL KHAN & ORS, seeks the removal of allegedly harmful material from online social media platforms and compensation of Rs. 2 crore. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on the day following the filing. The controversy emerged during a live debate focused on the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) system, where Kashyap reportedly criticized online educators, labeling them as "frauds" and "explainers" who prioritize views over academic integrity. Khan, who is referred to as "Khan Sir" in the initial report, allegedly made defamatory comments about Kashyap’s coverage of "star teachers," a term used to describe prominent educators in the online learning space. The lawsuit claims these remarks damaged Kashyap’s professional reputation and warranted legal action. Kashyap’s legal team argues that Khan’s statements were not only false but also targeted her work as a journalist, undermining her credibility in reporting on educational reforms. The case highlights tensions between media professionals and educators in the digital age, particularly regarding the role of online platforms in shaping public discourse. The court will need to determine whether Khan’s remarks crossed the threshold of defamation, which requires proof of false statements, intent to harm, and damage to reputation.#delhi_high_court #khan_sir #anjana_om_kashyap #faisal_khan #neet_exam_system

Naga Chaitanya Files Legal Action Against Misuse of Identity and Defamatory AI Content Actor Naga Chaitanya has initiated legal proceedings in the Delhi High Court to address the alleged misuse of his personal identity and the proliferation of defamatory AI-generated content online. His legal team argued that unauthorized use of his name, image, and voice through deepfake technology and AI tools has led to the circulation of explicit material, commercial exploitation, and reputational harm. The case highlights concerns over the boundaries of public scrutiny for celebrities and the legal protections available for personality rights. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, representing Chaitanya, presented evidence to the court detailing the extent of the alleged violations. The legal team submitted that several websites were exploiting Chaitanya’s name in conjunction with explicit search terms to attract traffic and distribute objectionable content. Unauthorised merchandise listings featuring his likeness were also showcased, with the court informed of online stores selling products bearing his image without consent. The lawsuit specifically targets the use of deepfake technology, voice-cloning software, and AI-based editing tools to create and disseminate false audiovisual material for financial gain. Chaitanya’s counsel emphasized that such practices have severely impacted his reputation, privacy, and public standing. The legal team also drew attention to defamatory YouTube uploads targeting the actor, noting that while some links had been removed, others linked to media coverage remained accessible. Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the case, acknowledged the heightened public scrutiny faced by celebrities but underscored the existence of clear boundaries.#delhi_high_court #naga_chaitanya #vaibhav_gaggar #justice_jyoti_singh #nagarjuna

Delhi High Court Grants Naga Chaitanya Interim Relief in Personality Rights Case The Delhi High Court has taken decisive action to safeguard the personality rights of Telugu actor Naga Chaitanya, issuing summons against unnamed defendants and indicating it will pass an interim order to protect the actor’s identity from unauthorized misuse. The court’s intervention follows a detailed presentation of evidence highlighting the widespread exploitation of his name, likeness, and personal information across digital platforms. The case underscores the growing legal challenges faced by celebrities in combating the proliferation of deepfakes, explicit content, and unregulated merchandise that infringe on their intellectual property and privacy. The court was presented with concrete examples of websites that paired Naga Chaitanya’s name with explicit search terms to manipulate traffic, as well as listings for unauthorized merchandise featuring his image. The suit also cited instances of manipulated content and defamatory material related to his personal life, which have been circulating online without his consent. Despite prior efforts by the actor to address these violations, including the issuance of cease-and-desist notices and legal complaints to intermediaries, online platforms, and service providers, the defendants either failed to respond adequately or provided only partial compliance. This allowed the infringing material to persist, with some platforms even monetizing the unauthorized content. Naga Chaitanya’s legal team has sought a dynamic injunction, a legal mechanism that enables courts to extend protection to new infringing URLs as they emerge without requiring repeated litigation.#deepfakes #ai_generated_content #delhi_high_court #naga_chaitanya #nagarjuna_akkineni

FIFA World Cup Faces Broadcasting Deadlock in India Amid Policy Shifts The FIFA World Cup, set to begin on June 12, is facing a critical challenge in India, where no broadcaster has secured the rights to air the tournament. Despite the country’s massive population of 1.4 billion and its potential as a major market, structural issues in sports broadcasting have left the event without a clear platform. The situation highlights deeper economic and regulatory shifts that have disrupted India’s sports media landscape. FIFA initially valued the India media rights package for the 2026 and 2030 tournaments at nearly $100 million, but the figure was later reduced to $35 million after minimal interest. Even this lower valuation failed to attract serious bids, with the best offer reportedly coming from a Reliance-backed joint venture at $20 million. FIFA’s refusal to accept this amount has left the rights in limbo, just weeks before the tournament’s start. Legal efforts to resolve the issue have also stalled. On May 12, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Union government and Prasar Bharati, following a petition that labeled the World Cup a “sporting event of national importance.” The petition sought directions to ensure the tournament reaches Indian viewers through free-to-air platforms like Doordarshan and DD Sports. However, the court’s notice does not guarantee a resolution, as the petition remains a legal push rather than a confirmed deal. A key legal question remains: whether the Sports Broadcasting Signals Act’s mandatory sharing provisions apply since India is not competing in the tournament. The broader issue lies in the collapse of India’s sports broadcasting model, which was once driven by cricket dominance and the lucrative fantasy gaming industry.#india #delhi_high_court #fifa_world_cup #reliance #prasar_bharati

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Retired Air Force Officer The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of Corporal Sachin Kumar Solanki, a retired Indian Air Force officer, and upheld the decision to remove him from service. In an order dated May 19, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) ruling that his removal was lawful. The court rejected his claims of procedural impropriety and disproportionate punishment, emphasizing the unique operational requirements of the military. Corporal Solanki, who joined the Indian Air Force in 2011 as an Airman-Communication Technician, was dismissed after an incident that led to his removal from service. He had previously challenged the decision through legal channels, but the court found that his actions violated internal disciplinary protocols. The petitioner, now referred to as Ex-Corporal (Retd), had not utilized the IAF’s internal redressal mechanisms before publicly airing grievances on social media. The case began when Solanki contested his dismissal before the Principal Bench of the AFT in New Delhi. His original application was dismissed on October 17, 2025, with the tribunal ruling that the administrative action was lawful. The AFT held that there was no violation of natural justice, the punishment was not arbitrary, and the decision was consistent with military discipline. In its review, the Delhi High Court reiterated that courts intervene in military disciplinary matters only in exceptional cases involving patent illegality or disproportionate punishment. The bench noted that the armed forces operate under strict hierarchies and operational demands, which require strict adherence to internal protocols.#indian_air_force #delhi_high_court #corporal_sachin_kumar_solanki #armed_forces_tribunal #air_force_order_17_2015

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹30 Lakh Fine on Google for Trademark Misuse The Delhi High Court has ruled that Google violated trademark laws by using Hindware’s registered mark “HINDWARE” as a keyword in its AdWords advertising program, imposing a ₹30 lakh fine on the tech giant. The court’s May 22 judgment, delivered in two commercial suits filed by Hindware (through its predecessor HSIL) against Google and other entities, concluded that Google’s role in facilitating the unauthorized use of the trademark for commercial gain constituted active participation in trademark infringement. The case originated in 2013–14 when Hindware, a leading sanitaryware manufacturer, alleged that its competitors, including Grohe India and Cera Sanitaryware, had exploited its trademark by purchasing “HINDWARE” and related keywords like “HINDWARE SANITARY” on Google’s AdWords platform. These keywords were used to display sponsored links to the competitors’ websites as the first search results when users typed “HINDWARE.” Hindware argued that this practice caused consumer confusion and undermined its brand’s reputation. During the trial, Grohe, Cera, and Omkara Infoweb settled with Hindware, leaving Google India and Google LLC as the remaining defendants. Hindware emphasized the strength of its brand, which had been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in earlier litigation. It contended that Google’s role in managing keyword auctions, suggesting trademarks via its keyword planner, and ranking ads made it an active participant in the infringement. The company argued that Google’s use of the trademark as a keyword for identical goods (sanitaryware) created a likelihood of confusion among consumers.#google #delhi_high_court #hindware #adwords #trademark_misuse

Indian Sanitaryware Brand Wins Legal Battle Against Google Over Trademark Infringement The Delhi High Court has ruled that Google’s practice of auctioning trademarked brand names as advertising keywords in its Google Ads program constitutes clear trademark infringement. The court ordered the tech giant to permanently stop using the term “HINDWARE” or its variations as keywords in its advertising system and awarded Rs 30 lakh in damages to Hindware, an Indian sanitaryware manufacturer. The case, which spanned over a decade, centered on whether Google’s pay-per-click model violated trademark laws by allowing competitors to divert traffic to their websites using a registered brand’s name. The dispute began in 2013 when Hindware discovered that competing brands, including Cera Sanitaryware and Grohe, were purchasing the trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword through Google AdWords. This practice led to customers searching for Hindware being shown results from these competing brands, which Hindware argued constituted “unfair competition” and “trademark dilution.” While Cera and Grohe eventually settled with Hindware, the legal battle against Google continued, focusing on whether the search engine’s role in facilitating keyword bidding qualified as trademark infringement under India’s Trade Marks Act. The court’s 163-page judgment emphasized Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, which defines unauthorized use of a registered trademark as including advertising in digital formats, such as sponsored search keywords. Justice Pushkarna ruled that Google’s AdWords program allowed competitors to exploit Hindware’s brand reputation by bidding on the term “HINDWARE,” effectively diverting potential customers to their websites.#google #delhi_high_court #hindware #trade_marks_act #google_ads

Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo in Sindi Dry Port Case, Next Hearing Scheduled for July 16 The Delhi High Court has directed that the status quo remain in place in the ongoing dispute over the Multimodal Logistics Park (Sindi dry port) project until the next hearing on July 16. The court’s decision follows a legal challenge by Delta Corp, a company whose contract for developing the dry port was terminated in September 2023. Delta Corp had filed the petition after Hyderabad-based AMR India emerged as the successful bidder in a fresh tender for the project. The court has adjourned the matter to July 16, effectively halting the signing of the final contract with National Highways Logistics Management Limited (NHLML), which is overseeing the development of the dry port. The Sindi dry port, a flagship initiative of Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari, is being developed by NHLML. Delta Corp’s contract was terminated in September 2023 on the grounds that the company failed to meet the step-by-step milestones required for infrastructure development as a concessionaire. After Delta Corp filed a petition in court challenging the termination, an arbitration process was initiated. However, Delta Corp again approached the court in late 2023 after AMR India secured the contract, arguing that the arbitration proceedings were still ongoing. Despite the issuance of a letter of award to AMR India, the court has ordered that the company be notified of the status quo order and requested its response before proceeding. The dry port is projected to be one of the largest logistics facilities in the region, with the potential to significantly reduce transportation costs.#nitin_gadkari #delhi_high_court #delta_corp #amr_india #national_highways_logistics_management_limited

Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Relief to Karisma Kapoor’s Children in Inheritance Dispute The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted temporary relief to Karisma Kapoor’s children, who are embroiled in a legal battle over the inheritance of their late father, Sanjay Kapoor. The court ordered that Sanjay Kapoor’s assets, including real estate, companies, and financial holdings, be preserved pending further legal proceedings. Background of the Dispute Sanjay Kapoor, a prominent businessman and co-founder of the Sonu Comstar Group, died suddenly on June 12, 2025, at the age of 53, following a heart attack during a polo match in the UK. His death sparked a legal tussle over his vast assets, valued at over $3.6 billion, which were reportedly left to his third wife, Priya Sachdev Kapoor, in a will dated March 21, 2025. Karisma Kapoor, Sanjay’s first wife, and their two children—Aisha and Arjun—allege that the will is fraudulent and that Priya, along with her associates, colluded to manipulate the document to seize control of the family’s wealth. The children filed a petition in court, accusing Priya of orchestrating a conspiracy to unlawfully acquire the assets and exclude other heirs. Court’s Orders and Legal Arguments The court temporarily barred Priya from transferring or disposing of Sanjay’s assets, including real estate, shares, and cryptocurrency holdings. Justice [Name] emphasized that the court would scrutinize the validity of the will and the allegations of fraud. Karisma’s legal team argued that the will was fabricated and that Priya’s actions—such as concealing the document for over a month before revealing it during a family meeting—suggested intent to defraud. They cited evidence of Priya’s alleged collusion with two associates, Dinesh Agrawal and Nitin Sharma, to hide the will.#delhi_high_court #karisma_kapoor #sanjay_kapoor #priya_sachdev_kapoor #sonu_comstar_group

Dehradun Police Encounter and the 2009 Murder Case: A 17-Year Legal Saga In a recent incident on Wednesday night, a police officer in Dehradun, Prem Nagar, was shot by three criminals fleeing after a robbery. The suspects, accused of stealing 2 lakh rupees, opened fire on the officer and his team, wounding him. This event marks the first time in 17 years that a criminal was killed in an encounter, breaking a long-standing policy of the Dehradun police to avoid lethal force. The incident echoes a dark chapter in the region’s history: the 2009 murder of an MBA student, Rana Bir Singh, by police officers. The case, which sparked nationwide outrage, revealed a premeditated and brutal operation. According to postmortem reports, Singh was subjected to 22 gunshot wounds and 28 signs of torture before being killed. The police initially claimed it was a "gunfight," but subsequent investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) exposed it as a fabricated encounter. The 2009 Case: A Fabricated Encounter Rana Bir Singh, a 23-year-old student from Gaziabad, was allegedly killed during a "gunfight" with police in Ladpur forest in 2009. However, the CBI’s 2014 investigation uncovered a conspiracy. The report stated that Singh was tortured, beaten, and then shot multiple times. The police had fabricated evidence to cover up the crime, including staged bullet wounds and false witness accounts. The case led to the conviction of 17 police officers, including inspectors, constables, and senior officials. The court sentenced them to life imprisonment, with seven receiving the death penalty. However, the Delhi High Court later acquitted 11 officers, citing lack of direct involvement in the murder.#supreme_court #central_bureau_of_investigation #delhi_high_court #dehradun_police #rana_bir_singh

Arvind Kejriwal Boycotts Hearing In Liquor Policy Case Before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal has decided to withdraw from further proceedings in the CBI liquor policy case pending before Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, citing a loss of confidence in the fairness of the judicial process. In a letter addressed to the judge, Kejriwal stated that his decision was inspired by the principles of Gandhian satyagraha, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. He argued that the proceedings before the court did not meet this fundamental standard, prompting his refusal to participate. Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Sharma, which he described as written “in all humility and with complete respect for the judiciary,” highlighted his concerns about the impartiality of the proceedings. He claimed that the language used in the judge’s order rejecting his recusal application conveyed the perception that his plea was a personal attack on the judge and the institution. This, he argued, made it impossible to believe in an impartial hearing. The judge had previously dismissed Kejriwal’s application for recusal, citing apprehensions of bias on his part. The case involves revision petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the trial court’s order discharging Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Sigh, and other accused in the liquor policy corruption case. Kejriwal had previously raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, pointing to the professional engagements of Justice Sharma’s children. Both of the judge’s children are empanelled as government counsel and receive case assignments from the Solicitor General.#right_to_information_act #central_bureau_of_investigation #delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #swarana_kanta_sharma

Delhi High Court Postpones Verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's Recusal Plea in Liquor Policy Case Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma postponed her verdict on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case. Originally scheduled for 2:30 pm, the court delayed its decision to 4:30 pm after accepting Kejriwal’s submission as a written filing. Justice Sharma stated that the court would not alter its procedural rules for any litigant, emphasizing that the recusal matter would be treated as written submissions rather than a formal rejoinder. Kejriwal, appearing in person without legal representation, argued that the registry’s refusal to accept his rejoinder was a “miscarriage of justice.” Justice Sharma acknowledged the court’s earlier leniency in allowing him to file an additional affidavit after the recusal matter had been reserved for orders. She clarified that under registry rules, parties appearing in person must seek permission to file documents, and since the case was not “extraordinary,” the standard procedure was followed. The judge also noted that there is no legal concept of a “rejoinder” to written submissions, and she would ensure Kejriwal’s concerns were addressed through the written record. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, opposed Kejriwal’s request, asserting that no court in India accepts post-reservation filings. He reiterated that the court should apply standard procedures to all litigants and warned against setting a precedent for unfounded recusal claims. Kejriwal, however, accused Justice Sharma of bias, alleging a “direct conflict of interest” due to her children being empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general.#manish_sisodia #cbi #delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #justice_swarana_kanta_sharma

Delhi Excise Policy Case: Kejriwal To Appear Before High Court Again, Demands Judge's Recusal Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), will appear virtually before the Delhi High Court on Monday in the ongoing excise policy case. He has once again raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving Justice Swarnakanta Sharma, the judge presiding over the case. Kejriwal submitted a counter affidavit earlier this week, alleging that the judge’s children are involved in government legal panels and hold positions that could compromise impartiality. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has strongly opposed these claims, calling them a dangerous precedent that could undermine judicial independence. Kejriwal’s argument centers on the fact that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter are part of the legal panel for the central government, which includes cases where the government is a party. He asserts that this creates a conflict of interest, as the judge’s family members are involved in cases that could overlap with the excise policy case. The CBI has dismissed these allegations as an attempt to tarnish the judiciary, warning that if such claims are accepted, judges would be unable to preside over cases involving government entities due to the prevalence of familial ties in legal panels. The case originated when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, a senior AAP leader, in the Delhi liquor policy scandal. The lower court ruled that the CBI’s investigation was flawed and lacked credibility, leading the agency to file a petition with the High Court.#central_bureau_of_investigation #delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #aam_aadmi_party #justice_swarnakanta_sharma

After calling 'Dhurandhar 2' makers thieves, Rajiv Rai assures the High Court he won't talk about the film while the case is in mediation The Delhi High Court has directed filmmaker Rajeev Rai to refrain from making public comments about the legal dispute involving the film Dhurandhar 2 while the case is under mediation. The court emphasized that once a matter is referred to mediation, parties involved must exercise restraint in discussing the case publicly to avoid disrupting the process. Rai, who had previously criticized the makers of Dhurandhar 2 as "thieves" for allegedly using the song Oye Oye (Tirchi Topi Wale) without permission, was ordered to submit an undertaking to the court confirming he would not engage with the media or make further statements about the dispute. The legal conflict arose when Trimurti Films, the production house behind the song, filed a case against the makers of Dhurandhar 2 for unauthorized use of the track. The court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, noted that Rai had continued to make public remarks about the case despite the mediation process being initiated. The judge stressed that litigants must respect the judicial process and avoid actions that could escalate the dispute outside the courtroom. Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, representing Rai, assured the court that her client would comply with the order and avoid commenting on the matter during mediation. The court highlighted that mediation is a critical step in resolving disputes, and public discourse could undermine its effectiveness. It warned that such restraint is necessary to prevent the dispute from intensifying and to maintain the integrity of the legal process.#dhurandhar_2 #delhi_high_court #rajeev_rai #trimurti_films #justice_tushar_rao_gedela