Bollywood stars, senior politicians and corporate giants crowded the Delhi High Court in 2025, seeking relief in major criminal, constitutional and commercial disputes. From personality rights and political cases to judicial controversy, the court remained at the centre of national attention.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court remained one of the busiest and most closely tracked constitutional courts in the country during 2025. The year saw the court adjudicate a wide range of high-profile matters involving celebrities, senior politicians, corporate entities, student bodies and civil society organisations.
The court’s docket reflected the breadth of modern litigation—spanning criminal law, constitutional challenges, privacy rights, commercial disputes, consumer protection and educational reforms—while also witnessing an unprecedented controversy involving one of its own judges.
Judicial Crisis: Cash Recovery Allegations Against Sitting Judge
The judiciary faced a major institutional crisis after reports emerged that burnt wads of huge currency notes were allegedly found at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, who was then serving as a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, on March 14.
The incident triggered widespread concern within legal circles and raised serious questions regarding judicial accountability and internal oversight mechanisms.
ALSO READ: From National Herald to IRCTC Scam: Key Delhi Court Cases of 2025 Explained
Following the developments, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court and has since been kept away from judicial work. A parliamentary inquiry was initiated into the allegations, marking one of the rare instances in recent times where impeachment proceedings against a High Court judge became a real possibility.
The episode sparked renewed debate on transparency, in-house inquiries and safeguards within the higher judiciary.
Criminal Law Matters: Sengar Case and Delhi Riots Conspiracy
One of the most controversial criminal law orders of the year was the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Sengar, who had been convicted for the rape of a minor girl.
The suspension order, passed on grounds relating to sentence suspension pending appeal, led to sharp public criticism and protests, with many questioning the timing and reasoning of the relief.
In contrast, the court adopted a stringent approach while refusing bail to 10 accused persons, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case connected to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
Also Read: 2020 Delhi Riots Case|| Umar Khalid Granted 7-Days Interim Bail to Attend Cousin’s Wedding
The court held that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by citizens cannot be allowed, observing that organised violence strikes at the rule of law and constitutional order.
The Supreme Court later stayed the Delhi High Court’s order suspending Sengar’s life sentence, effectively restoring the punishment and underscoring the sensitivity attached to crimes of sexual violence.
Protection of Personality Rights: Celebrities Seek Judicial Shield
The Delhi High Court witnessed a notable surge in petitions seeking protection of personality and publicity rights, reflecting growing concerns over misuse of identity in the digital age. Several public figures approached the court seeking injunctions against unauthorised commercial exploitation through advertisements, deepfake videos and AI-generated content.
Those granted interim relief included Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan, Salman Khan, Hrithik Roshan, R Madhavan, 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.
Similar protection was sought by Telugu actor NTR Junior, Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan and former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar, with the court recognising the commercial and personal value of a public figure’s name, image, likeness, persona and voice.
Bitter Inheritance Battle Involving Karisma Kapoor’s Children
A high-profile inheritance dispute involving the children of Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor came before the Delhi High Court. The children challenged the authenticity of the alleged will of their late father, industrialist Sunjay Kapur.
During the proceedings, the children accused Kapur’s wife, Priya Kapur, of being “greedy” and referred to her as a “Cinderella stepmother”.
Priya Kapur denied the allegations and defended the will of her husband, who passed away in June after collapsing during a polo match in England and reportedly suffering a cardiac arrest. She informed the court that Karisma Kapoor’s children had already received Rs 1,900 crore from the family trust and that they are now seeking a share in assets reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
Challenges to Films and OTT Content
The Delhi High Court also heard multiple petitions challenging the release of films and web series alleged to hurt religious sentiments or disturb public order. These included “Dhurandhar”, “Udaipur Files” and “2020 Delhi”.
In most cases, the court declined to interfere, emphasising freedom of expression, while in limited instances it granted partial relief after balancing competing interests.
Privacy of Public Figures: Educational Records Case
In a significant ruling on privacy, the Delhi High Court set aside orders of the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor degree details and BJP leader Smriti Irani’s Class 10 and 12 records.
Also Read: Delhi Red Fort Blast Case: Court Sends Amir Rashid Ali to 10-Day NIA Custody
The court held that merely holding public office does not make all “personal information” open to public disclosure. An appeal against the ruling is pending before a division bench.
National Herald Case: ED Moves High Court
Towards the end of the year, the High Court issued notices to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its charge sheet in the National Herald case.
Political Litigation Across Party Lines
Several other political leaders were also before the Delhi High Court during the year, including TMC leaders Mahua Moitra and Saket Gokhale, AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Atishi, and Jammu and Kashmir MP Sheikh Abdul Rashid. These matters involved criminal proceedings, bail pleas and constitutional challenges.
Student Politics, Campus Discipline and Mental Health
The High Court took serious note of defacement of public and private property during Delhi University Student Union election campaigns and criticised the display of muscle and money power.
It also expressed concern over increasing student suicides and emphasised that a proper, functional and effective anti-ragging helpline is an immediate and utmost necessity.
Attendance Norms Revisited After Law Student’s Suicide
In a landmark ruling following the 2016 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, the Delhi High Court held that no law college or university can bar students from appearing in examinations solely due to shortage of attendance.
The court also directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate mandatory attendance norms applicable to law colleges.
PFI Ban Challenge and Terror Funding Matters
The High Court agreed to hear a plea filed by the Popular Front of India challenging a tribunal order upholding the Centre’s five-year ban on the organisation. Several accused in terror funding cases, however, failed to secure relief.
Corporate Disputes: Apple, IndiGo and SpiceJet
Apple Inc challenged a Competition Commission of India direction to furnish audited financial statements. IndiGo sought refund of over Rs 900 crore paid as customs duty on aircraft engines and parts re-imported after repairs abroad. PILs were also filed seeking compensation for passengers affected by mass flight cancellations.
In a separate matter, the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by media baron Kalanithi Maran challenging a portion of an order upholding an arbitral award in his dispute with SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh.
Service Charge Guidelines Upheld
In a blow to the hospitality industry, the High Court dismissed petitions challenging Central Consumer Protection Authority guidelines prohibiting mandatory service charge on food bills, holding the practice to be against public interest and an unfair trade practice.
COVID-19 Cases Reach Closure
The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and others accused of illegal stocking and distribution of COVID-19 medicines.
It also quashed 16 cases against 70 Indian nationals accused of housing foreign attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the March 2020 lockdown.
Judicial Appointments and Strength
The year also saw multiple judicial appointments, transfers, retirements and elevations. The Delhi High Court currently functions with 44 judges against a sanctioned strength of 60.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi High Court
