Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [September 7- September 13, 2026]

1. [Ajeet Bharti] An Additional Sessions Judge in Delhi has answered that question by dismissing YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail application, holding that his on-air remarks about Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad's "marriageability" prima facie disclosed the ingredients of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; thereby triggering the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act. ASJ Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, passed the order on September 7 in Bail Application No. 2114 of 2026, arising out of FIR No. 0030/2026 dated August 23, 2026, registered at Police Station North Avenue. The FIR The FIR was registered on a written complaint by the Delhi State President of a registered political outfit, who was not personally present at any physical occurrence; the FIR records the place of occurrence "on social media."

Case Title: State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti

Bench: ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler

Click here and here to read more

2. [Swatantra Bhardwaj] Delhi's Patiala House Court remanded Swatantra Bhardwaj to 14 days of judicial custody in connection with the alleged assault on the father of a minor protester during a demonstration at Jantar Mantar.Supreme Court Judgements The latest order follows Bhardwaj's arrest by the Delhi Police Crime Branch from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on September 4. Bhardwaj had earlier been produced before Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, who granted the investigating agency one day of police custody. On expiry of that remand, he was produced before the Duty Magistrate yesterday, who had granted one day of judicial custody. The period ended today, pursuant to which he was produced today before the ASJ Laler again, who has now sent him to 14 days of judicial custody. Case Against Bhardwaj Bhardwaj was detained by the Delhi's Crime Branch in UP's Bulandshahr on September 4 and subsequently brought to Delhi. Police had earlier indicated that they were taking steps to arrest him in connection with the case following demands for his arrest.

Click here to read more

3. [SC/ST Act case] YouTuber Ajeet Bharti has moved the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under the SC-ST Act over alleged objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.Court ruling alerts The move comes after Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on September 7. While denying pre-arrest bail, the Sessions Court held that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, attracting the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18. Also Read - Product Disparagement: Delhi High Court Orders Beco To Pull Down Ads Targeting Surf Excel And Vim The FIR The FIR was registered on a written complaint by the Delhi State President of a registered political outfit, who was not personally present at any physical occurrence; the FIR records the place of occurrence "on social media." It alleges that Bharti, through his verified account on X (@ajeetbharti) and on YouTube, published an episode of his self-titled programme on August 22, 2026 at about 22:11 hrs, which had garnered approximately 23,100 views by the date of the complaint. The episode was alleged to contain statements "casteist, derogatory and humiliating towards persons of the Scheduled Caste community," towards Chandra Shekhar Azad, and towards Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, along with statements "alleged to be sexually degrading and intimidatory."

Click here to read more

4. [IRCTC Hotel case] A Delhi court has ordered the framing of money laundering charges against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi and RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav in connection with the alleged irregularities in the leasing of two IRCTC hotels in Ranchi and Puri during Lalu Prasad's tenure as Union Railway Minister. Special Judge Vishal Gogne observed that there was a “strong suspicion of abuse of office and proceeds of crime” in the hands of Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav, who allegedly continued to benefit from a tainted parcel of land in Patna transferred during Lalu Prasad's tenure as Railway Minister. The court framed charges against nine accused persons, including Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav, while seven others were discharged. The court said formal charges would be framed on October 3. Alleged quid pro quo in IRCTC hotel tender The case relates to the alleged manipulation of the tender process for awarding the sub-lease rights of IRCTC hotels at Ranchi and Puri to M/s Sujata Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a company associated with Vijay and Vinay Kochhar.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Lara Project L.L.P. & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

5. [Lawyer Anticipatory Bail] A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Advocate Shubham Tyagi in connection with the collapse of a paying guest accommodation at Satya Niketan on September 6, 2026, which resulted in the death of seven persons. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh passed the order on September 10, 2026, in FIR No. 153/2026 registered at South Campus Police Station under Sections 105, 290 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court observed that Tyagi’s role required further investigation, particularly in relation to his knowledge of the construction work, his involvement in operating the paying guest accommodation and the circumstances surrounding the building collapse. A significant factor considered by the Court was the non-disclosure of a rent agreement executed in favour of Tyagi for the second and third floors of the collapsed building.

Case Title: State Vs. Shubham Tyagi

Bench: ASJ Saurabh Partap Singh Laler

Click here to read more

6. [Gaurav Bhatia Defamation Case] Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Thursday undertook before the Delhi High Court to delete, within 24 hours, social media posts concerning BJP leader and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, in a ₹2-crore defamation suit filed by Bhatia.eSewa Van services The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing the matter. Court asked the CJP and Abhijeet Dipke to file their responses in Bhatia’s defamation suit as well. Court, however, did not grant a dynamic injunction against the defendants at this stage. The matter arose from an AI-generated post which allegedly attributed certain remarks about Swatantra Bhardwaj to Bhatia. Bhatia has denied making the remarks and alleged that the publication and subsequent social media posts were damaging his reputation. During the hearing earlier in the day, Bhatia, appearing in person, described the matter as one of “aggravated defamation”. He submitted that the posts should not remain online as the defendants had a large following and their publication was causing damage to his image. “These posts can’t be on the internet. They have millions of followers. It is causing damage to my image,” Bhatia submitted. Bhatia also told the court that he had given the defendants an opportunity to resolve the issue, but they made more such posts. Court had earlier asked the defendants to consider voluntarily taking down the posts rather than having a takedown order passed against them. After the matter was taken up again following a passover, counsel for Das and Ranka informed the court that they would remove the tweets.eSewa Van services Court subsequently recorded the undertakings that the posts would be removed within 24 hours.

Case Title: Gaurav Bhatia vs. Saurav Das and Others

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here, here and here to read more

7. [Omar Rashid] The Delhi High Court has issued summons in Journalist Omar Rashid's defamation suit against a woman lawyer who accused him of rape and forced beef-eating in a social media campaign last year, seeking damages and legal accountability for what he has called a "sinister campaign" against him. Court ruling alerts Justice Sachin Dutta issued summons and also issued notice on Rashid's application seeking interim injunctive relief. "I'll hear the injunction application after two weeks. I'll only say that the exemptions would be allowed. The IA 24662 would be allowed. Notice in the injunction application. In view of the urgency emphasised by learned counsel for the plaintiff, let reply if any be filed within two weeks, huh. List exactly after two weeks." The matter is now listed on 24 September before Court and 8 October before Joint Registrar. Background The suit, titled Omar Rashid v. X & Ors., has been filed days after the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) closed, after over 300 days, its own inquiry into the same posts, finding no grounds for the Delhi Police to proceed against Rashid. The controversy dates back to May 21 and 22, 2025, when anonymous social media posts accused Rashid, then with The Wire, of rape and forcing a woman to eat beef, wrapping the allegations in a communal and political narrative around Kashmir.

Case Title: Omar Rashid v. X & Ors.

Bench: Justice Sachin Dutta

Click here and here to read more

8. [Satya Niketan PG Collapse] Delhi court has sent the building owner’s son, the paying guest (PG) operator and the labour contractor to two days of police custody in connection with the collapse of a five-storey building at Satya Niketan that claimed seven lives. Judicial Magistrate Kautuk Bharadwaj of Patiala House Court passed the order after the Delhi Police sought three-day custody of Mahesh Gupta, Sudhanshu and Sanoj, who have been arrested during the investigation into the incident. Gupta, the son of building owner Hariram, was produced before the court after completing his earlier two-day police custody. Sudhanshu and Sanoj were produced before the court following their arrests on Tuesday. The proceedings were conducted in-camera after counsel appearing for Sudhanshu submitted that a “media trial” was prejudicing the ongoing investigation. The Magistrate thereafter directed media personnel to leave the courtroom.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate Kautuk Bharadwaj

Click here and here to read more

9. [Dr. Kapil Kakkar Contempt case] The Delhi High Court has granted one week as a last opportunity to psychologist Dr. Kapil Kakar to file his reply to a show-cause notice in contempt proceedings arising from videos in which allegations of corruption, collusion and criminality were made against a sitting High Court judge. eSewa Van services The matters was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan. The matter was earlier initiated after the Delhi High Court Bar Association approached the Court over Kakar’s social media videos concerning the Saket building collapse. The Court had prima facie found the contents of the videos contemptuous and had directed issuance of a show-cause notice to Kakar. During today's hearing, Advocate Tanveer Nizam, appearing virtually from Mumbai, informed the Bench that he had recently been engaged by Kakar and sought two to three weeks’ time to prepare the matter. Nizam submitted that he needed to file his vakalatnama, examine the documents and prepare a detailed case law compilation before arguing the matter. He also told the Court that he had been briefed by Advocate Abhishek Mishra, who had connected him with Kakar, and that he would seek to appear for the respondent-contemnor.

Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Dr. Kapil Kakar and Others

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan

Click here to read more

10. [Phansi Ghar Row] The Delhi High Court recently permitted former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Minister Manish Sisodia to withdraw their plea challenging a notice issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in connection with the controversy surrounding the structure described as the "Phansi Ghar" on the Assembly premises. Supreme Court Judgements Justice Sachin Datta, in an order dated August 21, 2026, recorded the submission on behalf of the Assembly that the impugned notice had been issued to the petitioners, "only for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding enquiry (as of now)". In view of that submission, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that they did not wish to press the petition at that stage, while expressly reserving their rights and remedies in respect of any fresh cause of action that may arise. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The pending application was also disposed of. What was the High Court petition about? Kejriwal and Sisodia had approached the High Court against proceedings initiated by the Delhi Legislative Assembly concerning the controversial structure inside the Assembly complex.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal and Anr. v. Legislative Assembly and Others.

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more