Delhi HC: Several Bollywood stars, senior politicians and corporate giants approached the Delhi High Court in 2025 seeking relief in high-profile legal disputes ranging from protection of their personality to constitutional rights.
The entire judiciary was rocked after burnt wads of huge currency notes were found at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the then sitting Delhi High Court judge, on March 14. He is currently serving at Allahabad High Court sans judicial work and facing parliamentary inquiry ahead of probable impeachment motion for his removal.
The high court remained in news for suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Sengar, who was convicted for raping a minor girl, and also for denying bail to 10 persons including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the “larger conspiracy” case of February 2020 riots by ruling that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens cannot be allowed.
However, the decision suspending the life term of Sengar was quickly stayed by the apex court amid huge public uproar over the high court order.
Big shots including Bollywood actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, her husband Abhishek Bachchan, her mother-in-law Jaya Bachchan, Salman Khan, Hrithik Roshan, R Madhavan and Ajay Devgn, filmmaker Karan Johar, singer Kumar Sanu, Telugu actor Akkineni Nagarjuna, ‘Art of Living’ founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and podcaster Raj Shamani approached the high court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The court granted them interim relief.
The list also includes Telugu actor NTR Junior and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan and former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar who urged the court to protect their personality rights by restraining unauthorised use of their name, image, likeness, persona and voice.
Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor’s two children also hotly contested their suit in the high court challenging the authenticity of the purported will of their late father Sunjay Kapur with the kids accusing his wife Priya Kapur of being “greedy” and terming her “Cinderella stepmother”.
Priya Kapur also left no stone unturned to defend herself and the will of her husband, who passed away in June after collapsing and reportedly suffering a cardiac arrest during a polo match in England, her husband’s will and informing the court that the actress’ children have already received Rs 1,900 crore from the family trust. Karisma’s children are seeking share in the assets reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
The year also saw challenge on release of several movies, including “Dhurandhar”, “Udaipur Files”, “2020 Delhi”, in theatres and web series on OTT platforms with the high court either refusing to interfere or granting partial reliefs.
The high court also set aside the CIC orders directing disclosure of details related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor degree and BJP leader Smriti Irani’s class 10 and 12 records, saying just because they were holding a public office, it did not render all their “personal information” to public disclosure. An appeal against the single judge’s order is pending before a division bench.
At the fag end of the year, the high court asked Congress leaders Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the order of the trial court that refused to take cognisance of its charge sheet against them in the National Herald case.
Besides them, several other politicians like TMC leaders Mahua Moitra and Saket Gokhale, AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Atishi and Jammu and Kashmir MP Sheikh Abdul Rashid were also in the high court contesting their respective legal battles.
Also Read: Crimes against women dip in Delhi, but serious concerns persist
Taking student leaders to task, the high court pulled up the authorities and Delhi University Student Union candidates over the defacing of public and private property during campaigns and showing muscle and money power.
It highlighted that students’ suicides are becoming more frequent and emphasized that a proper, functional and effective anti-ragging helpline is an immediate and utmost necessity.
In a separate case related to the death of law student Sushant Rohilla by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance, the high court passed a slew of directions including that no law college or university can bar students from taking examinations due to lack of minimum attendance and directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate the mandatory attendance norms.
It also held as maintainable and agreed to hear a plea by the Popular Front of India (PFI) against a tribunal order upholding the Centre’s five-year ban on the group. Several accused in terror funding cases also failed to get any relief from the high court.
Corporates like Apple Inc, Indigo and Spicejet were also contesting their legal battles in the high court. While Tech giant Apple approached the high court challenging CCI’s direction to furnish its audited financial statements, interGlobe Aviation which operates the IndiGo airline sought refund of more than Rs 900 crore paid as customs duty on aircraft engines and parts re-imported into India after overseas repairs.
PILs were also filed against Indigo to compensate passengers affected by the cancellation of hundreds of its flights in November and December, citing changes in the pilots’ flight duty and regulatory norms.
In the case concerning SpiceJet, the high court dismissed an appeal of media baron Kalanithi Maran challenging a certain portion of a single judge’s order upholding an arbitral award in relation to his dispute with the airlines and its promoter Ajay Singh. Though the arbitral tribunal had passed the award in favour of Maran and his company Kal Airways, it had rejected certain claims raised by him.
In a jolt to the hospitality industry, the high court dismissed the petitions of restaurant bodies against the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines prohibiting hotels and restaurants from mandatorily levying service charge on food bills. It held that this was against public interest and amounted to unfair trade practice.
Several COVID-19 related matters also saw closure in 2025 with the high court quashing a criminal case against Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and others for allegedly illegally stocking and distributing COVID-19 drugs during the pandemic.
The court also quashed 16 cases against 70 Indian nationals for housing foreign attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in March 2020 allegedly in violation of COVID-19 norms.
The high court saw several fresh appointments of judges, transfers, retirements and elevations during the year, taking its current strength to 44 as against the sanctioned strength of 60.
Five arbitrators, who have retired but are less than 70 years of age and have…
Several gig workers said they work 11 to 12 hours a day for modest daily…
The van used in the crime has been seized, and the accused have confessed to…
The teaser of the song has garnered over 7 million views across platforms, reflecting the…
Control rooms will monitor the movement of traffic round-the-clock through CCTV cameras and other surveillance…
The CPCB, on February 17, had submitted a report to the panel about various locations…
