The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by the father of a murder victim seeking a direction to conduct a Narco Analysis Test on the accused, holding that accused persons who have categorically declined consent cannot be compelled to undergo the test. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Selvi, the Court held that the involuntary administration of narco analysis violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and that the victim’s right to a fair trial under Article 21, however weighty, cannot override that constitutional protection.
The Delhi High Court has been informed that the Delhi Police is considering the Kshatriya Karni Sena’s request for permission to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar against reservation policies and the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2026. The organisation has two petitions before the Court, one for the protest permission and another seeking restoration of restricted social-media accounts. The protest matter was listed for October 28 and the social-media matter for November 2.
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBI to issue a Red Corner Notice through INTERPOL against a contemnor who has remained outside India and has not appeared despite non-bailable warrants. The Court also directed the Ministry of External Affairs to inform the authorities in the United States, where his IP address was traced, and ordered the Cyber Cell to ascertain the location from which he joined the proceedings virtually.
Allowing a batch of five writ petitions, the Delhi High Court has quashed reassessment notices issued to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA as time-barred and without jurisdiction, set aside an Authority for Advance Rulings order, and directed the Income Tax Department to refund about Rs 783 crore of TDS to Teva Israel with interest. The Court held that while protective assessment is permissible, there is no concept of protective recovery, and that withholding the refund for over a decade was arbitrary to the point of being confiscatory.
The Delhi High Court has stayed a POCSO court’s order directing an FIR against a group of police officers, and framed a question for detailed hearing: where a Special Judge under a special statute finds no offence under that statute is prima facie made out, should the application under Section 175(3) BNSS be transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate rather than decided by the Special Judge? The competing factual accounts are untested; the Court expressed no view on the merits.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition by a suspended advocate who, instead of appealing his Bar Council of India disciplinary punishment to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, sought to challenge it collaterally through a criminal complaint alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and the IPC against the judge who had rejected an earlier complaint. The Court held the only remedy against a BCI appellate order lies under Section 38, and that the revisional jurisdiction disclosed no error warranting interference.
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Jagtar Singh Johal in a batch of NIA cases under the UAPA, setting aside the trial court’s refusals. Noting that he has spent over eight years in custody with 123 witnesses still to be examined and no prospect of the trial concluding soon, the Court held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial can justify bail even under the UAPA’s stringent regime. The allegations are untested; the grant is subject to stringent conditions.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an advocate’s challenge to a GST Department search of his cabin and the seizure of his computer, holding that privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam attaches to the client’s communications, not to the advocate personally, and cannot operate as an absolute bar where prima facie material indicates the advocate was himself involved in the affairs under investigation. The Court preserved safeguards for genuinely privileged and third-party client material.
Hearing actress Meenakshi Chaudhary’s suit to protect her personality rights, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim order to take down obscene and sexually explicit content, but declined a blanket injunction, with Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stressing that a plaintiff must show the unauthorised commercial monetisation of her personality traits. The Court, weighing similar suits by other public figures, is examining the larger question with the help of amici curiae.
The Delhi High Court has held that an order of a Special Court under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, confirming the attachment of property, is not an interlocutory order but finally adjudicates the party’s rights on attachment, so an appeal against it lies to the High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act. Rejecting the NIA’s preliminary objection, the Court held the appeal maintainable and listed it for final hearing.