The Centre took control of Jaipur Polo Ground in Delhi’s Race Course area after an eviction order, stating the land would serve a larger public purpose. The move followed Delhi High Court proceedings involving environmental concerns and club premises.
The Delhi High Court refused to extend the CBSE Class XII answer-sheet verification and re-evaluation deadline, citing possible delays in results. The Court noted that reopening the portal could affect admissions and directed individual students to approach it if required.
The Delhi High Court refused to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged online trolling of a Saket Court judge after interim protection was granted to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in a case involving remarks against Newslaundry and its journalists.
The Delhi High Court directed removal of additional videos uploaded by Dr. Kapil Kakkar containing allegations against a sitting High Court judge and linking the judge to the Saket building collapse deaths. The order was passed during proceedings in a criminal contempt petition initiated by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The Delhi High Court reserved judgment on petitions challenging the Bar Council of Delhi elections after hearing extensive arguments over three days and examining video recordings of the vote-counting process, with the controversy centering on the conduct and fairness of the electoral proceedings.
The Delhi High Court held that daughters cannot claim inheritance or partition rights in agricultural land where succession opened before the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendment, ruling that such cases remain governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, under which male lineal descendants receive preference in succession.
The Patiala House Court directed framing of charges against Sukesh Chandrasekhar, Leena Maria Paul, Jacqueline Fernandez and others in the Rs 200 crore extortion and money laundering case, holding that investigation materials disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons in the high-profile criminal matter.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the Full Court’s decision to form a judges’ committee to examine raising courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction in Delhi from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore.
The Delhi High Court questioned the DHCBA’s decision to abstain from judicial work over proposed pecuniary jurisdiction changes, with Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observing that lawyers’ strikes ultimately harm litigants and grievances must be raised through proper legal mechanisms.
The Delhi High Court directed officials from the Union MHA, Delhi government and Delhi Police to meet within a week to review security for district court judges, with Justice Manoj Jain stressing the issue’s seriousness and urgent need for action.
