Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court observed that a wrong committed by the parents of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner, who was aged just about four years at the time of his admission and is still a minor.
The appellant approached the Court seeking a direction permitting her husband, Sonam Wangchuk, to be shifted from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, or any other medical facility of his choice.
The Delhi High Court directed preservation of CCTV footage, an independent medical examination, and detailed reports from jail authorities after a Tihar inmate alleged custodial assault by the Head Warden, denial of medical treatment, and demand for illegal protection money.
Delhi High Court held that a trade mark need not be formally declared as “well-known” to claim protection under Section 11(2), Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that ZARA, being entitled to protection as a well-known mark, could oppose registration of the deceptively similar mark ZORA.
The Court held that no violation of bodily autonomy was found where medical care was limited to consented oral treatment despite the patient’s critical health condition marked by dangerously low sugar, sodium and potassium levels.
The parties have been directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 17 July 2026, while the appeal has been listed before the Division Bench on 21 August 2026 to report the outcome of the mediation proceedings.
The protest stemmed from systemic examination irregularities surrounding national-level exams, most notably recent NEET-UG medical entrance exam paper leak.
The Court stated that since all anticipated vacancies up to 1 December 2025 had already been included in the earlier recruitment process, the respondents were under no obligation to conduct a separate examination in 2025.
Delhi High Court observes that NSE is a recognised stock exchange performing vital public functions, not an ordinary commercial venture. But whether its MD & CEO, by virtue of that office, qualifies as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a mixed question of fact and law that must be determined on evidence at trial.
Delhi High Court dismissed a passport DOB correction plea, holding that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on where the cause of action arises, not the location of the MEA.
Delhi High Court held that the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature was not in accordance with law and concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her claim for PwD reservation was unsustainable. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s order setting aside the cancellation and granting consequential reliefs to the respondent.
The Court held that bail considerations must balance the accused’s right to personal liberty with the right to life and safety of the public, particularly where the accused is alleged to have played a central role in a heinous terrorist conspiracy.
Delhi High Court ordered a State-wide audit of HMIS implementation and ICU bed management systems in 38 Delhi Government hospitals after a patient was denied an ICU bed despite online availability.
Delhi High Court dismissed BitBNS users’ appeal, holding that disputes over withdrawal restrictions, alleged fund mismanagement, and compensation must be pursued through civil or consumer remedies rather than writ proceedings
Holding that Athar Khan’s role was prima facie distinguishable from co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court dismissed his second bail appeal in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case under the UAPA.
The Court directed the MCD to ensure that the petitioner does not, in any manner, obstruct the ingress to or egress from the school by its students, parents or faculty and sell any tobacco products which could be harmful to the children.
Pursuant to the Full Court’s resolution dated 9 July 2026, the Delhi High Court has designated 85 Advocates as Senior Advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that Ravi Kishan’s name, image, likeness, voice, and other distinctive personality attributes constitute valuable personality rights deserving legal protection. Granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, the Court restrained the unauthorised use of his identity, including through AI-generated content and deepfakes, and directed the removal of objectionable online material.
The Delhi High Court had held that seeking hotel stay and call record details to prove the charge of adultery would not violate right to privacy.
Delhi High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to inquire into the circumstances in which the investigating officer sought permission to search and arrest an accused despite the subsistence of interim protection from arrest in an anticipatory bail matter.