The Delhi High Court has quashed cases registered by the Delhi Police and the Enforcement Directorate against news portal NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha in relation to alleged violation of FDI norms.

In a judgement dated May 29, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said the continuation of the FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing was “nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law” and once the FIR under predicate offence was quashed, the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in the matter was also liable to be closed.

The EOW’s 2020 FIR alleged that PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, NewsClick’s parent company, received Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) of ₹9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC USA during the financial year 2018-19, in violation of the foreign investment law, which caused a loss to the government exchequer.

It claimed that the investment was made by greatly overvaluing the shares of the company to avoid the alleged cap of 26% of FDI in a digital news website, and that over 45% of this investment was diverted/siphoned off as salary, consultation fee, rent, etc, for ulterior motives.

The ED subsequently registered a money laundering case against NewsClick, Mr. Purkayastha and others.

PPK Newsclick Studio sought quashing of the FIR, stating it was replete with vague allegations.

In the judgement, the Court stated that the investment was an economic decision, which “did not spell out any criminal offence”, and as per reply of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to a letter by the news outlet, there was no cap/restriction on receipt of the FDI in digital media at the relevant time.

The Court held that investment was as per the acceptable practices, and the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust, even if all the allegations were admitted, were not established.

It stated that for the offence of cheating, there has to be a “cheated” person, which should be M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC in this case, but there was no such complaint, and instead the complaint was made by “merely an informant”.

The Court further noted that a company in the business of digital print media was bound to incur expenses on payment of salary, consultation fee, rent, etc, and the allegation of siphoning was therefore not tenable.

The Court also rejected the ED’s attempt to sustain its money laundering case on the basis of the offence of conspiracy under IPC, stating that the investigating agency must show the “illegal objective” or “means” adopted by NewsClick and others for the offence.

“Pertinently, extensive investigations have been carried out by ED for about a year and a half and Petitioners as well as its employees have been summoned and examined many a times, but nothing incriminating till date has been found or placed on record. Aside from bald assertions of there being a criminal conspiracy, there is not a whisper of any incriminating allegation, which would even remotely suggest the commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA,” the court stated.

“The FIR No. 0116/2020 and the ECIR bearing ECIR/14/HIU/2020 are hereby, quashed,” it concluded.

The court said that once the ECIR itself was quashed, the prayer for supply of the copy of the ECIR was infructuous.

The Delhi High Court on Monday expressed concern over the Centre’s move to take over properties in Lutyens’ Delhi, including the Delhi Gymkhana Club, the Indian Polo Club and the Delhi Race Club, observing that the shrinking green spaces in the national capital could worsen the city’s environmental challenges.

Hearing a petition filed by the Indian Polo Association against a May 20 eviction notice directing it to vacate the multi-acre Jaipur Polo Ground in the Race Course area, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna questioned the rationale behind the proposed takeover and its impact on the city’s remaining open spaces.

“Delhi will suffocate. Whatever little breather we have in the NDMC (New Delhi Municipal Council) area that is going to go. We will all suffocate and die,” Justice Krishna orally said.

The court asked what the Centre is planning to do with the heritage structures located within the Gymkhana and Polo Club premises. It also asked whether the land would be used for high-rise construction. “…We have only highrises all over. Every colony has been demolished. If this is how you want Delhi to live, then God help us,” the court said.

The Centre defended the move, submitting that the land was required for public and defence purposes. It argued that there was limited space available in central Delhi and key government functions needed to be carried out from the area.

Plea filed

The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the Indian Polo Association had already challenged the eviction notice before a court at Patiala House under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. However, the trial court had issued notice in the matter without deciding its application seeking interim protection against eviction. Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed the Patiala House court to consider and decide the plea for a stay on the eviction notice on June 10.

(with inputs from PTI)

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an insurance company cannot avoid paying compensation merely because a tractor involved in an accident was pulling a trolley loaded with bricks, holding that the principal cause of the accident remains the movement of the insured tractor and not the trolley attached to it.

In a judgment delivered on May 29, 2026, Justice Anish Dayal dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of ₹49 lakh to the family of a man killed in a road accident in Haryana in 2010.

Reliance General Insurance, which had insured the tractor, argued that the offending vehicle was a tractor attached to a trolley carrying bricks and was therefore being used for commercial purposes rather than ‘agricultural purposes’. The insurance company said only the tractor stood insured under the policy and not the attached trolley.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that the focus must remain on the vehicle that actually causes the accident. Referring to recent Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that the accident was caused by the movement of the tractor and the attached trolley had no independent identity as a motor vehicle in such circumstances.

“The principal cause of the accident is the movement of the tractor on the road,” the court said, adding that the fact that the trolley was carrying bricks could not by itself provide a successful insurance defence in a case arising from alleged abrupt braking and a sudden turn.

The case arose from a fatal accident on August 15, 2010, near Bawal in Haryana. Adarsh Kumar Katiyar, 53, was driving from Jaipur to Delhi when his car collided with the tractor-trolley carrying bricks after it allegedly applied brakes suddenly while taking a turn. He died of injuries.

The Delhi High Court has said that the unnatural death of a young married woman demands prompt and diligent police investigation, expressing displeasure over an eight-month delay in the registration of an FIR by Delhi Police in a dowry death case.

In a judgment delivered on June 1 on an anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying relief to the husband and in-laws in the case involving the death of a 25-year-old woman within six months of her marriage.

The judge remarked that the registration of the FIR in the case “took more time than the entire duration of her marriage” and termed it an “unfortunate reality” that the deceased’s father was made to “run from pillar to post” before the FIR was registered based on a judicial order.

In the case, the husband informed the deceased’s father on July 2, 2025, that his daughter had been hospitalised after she fell from the stairs. However, upon reaching the hospital, the father suspected foul play.

The court records state that the woman died by suicide. She succumbed on July 3, 2025, while the FIR was registered only on February 13, 2026, following the directions of a magisterial court.

“Yet another case of a young woman having lost her life within six months of marriage. In this Court’s view, once the deceased’s parents had raised suspicion against her husband and in-laws, the matter required a prompt and effective response from the investigating agency,” the court observed.

“This court hopes that, in future, applications seeking directions for registration of FIRs concerning the unnatural death of a young woman within a short period of marriage, particularly where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to register an FIR, shall be taken up with greater urgency by courts and be listed on shorter dates so that the issue of registration of FIR and commencement of investigation is not left unresolved for months,” it added.

(Those in distress can contact Tele MANAS at 14416 to seek help)

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 20, 2026) dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to deregister the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and disqualify its chief, Arvind Kejriwal, and other leaders from contesting elections for boycotting court proceedings in the excise policy case.

A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the petition by Satish Kumar Aggarwal was bereft of any merit and his contention was “too far-fetched, highly misconceived and misplaced”.

According to the public interest litigation (PIL), AAP was liable to be deregistered in terms of Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act on account of its officer bearers and members boycotting the proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.

The plea contended that while Section 29A(5) mandates a political party to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution”, the AAP leaders failed to adhere to the constitutional principles when they “scandalised and politicised the entire system” in the excise policy case.

“There is nothing on record to establish that the Respondent no. 3 (AAP) has admitted that it has no faith in the Constitution or the principles of secularism, socialism or democracy,” the court said.

The court stated that the Election Commission does not have the power to deregister a political party, and contempt of court proceedings have already been initiated against the politicians for their conduct.

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a YouTuber to six months imprisonment in contempt cases over his videos that “personally attacked” certain judicial officers and “lowered” the dignity of the judicial system.

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said Gulshan Pahuja neither showed any regret nor suggested any “course correction”, and not punishing him might embolden him.

“In fact, he maintains that what he did was with the intent of improving the judicial system. He, in fact, compounds his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this court and thus, evidently, he is neither repentant nor deserves any mercy,” the bench observed.

In his YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, Mr. Pahuja personally attacked three Delhi judicial officers and even imputed that in case a litigant’s case is listed before them, such litigant should not expect justice.

The intent of Mr. Pahuja is of “only scandalising and lowering the image of these judicial officers in the general public, thereby lowering the authority of the Court” the court had earlier said.

“We are of the opinion that these cases call for the imposition of the maximum punishment on the contemnor. We, therefore, impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for a term of six months along with a fine of ₹2000/- on the contemnor, that is, Mr. Gulshan Pahuja, in each of these matters. The sentence shall run concurrently for these matters,” the court ordered on May 16.

Mr. Pahuja submits that he will not ask for a reduction of sentence or “expect justice from this Court”. During the hearing, he started citing examples of freedom fighters and others who, on the quantum of sentence, had taken a stand that they would not accept any leniency from the British government.

Since the contemnor intended to challenge the decision, the court suspended the sentence for 60 days to enable him to approach the Supreme Court.

The court asked Mr. Pahuja to surrender before the Registrar General after 60 days if a suspension order is not passed by the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with eviction notices issued to residents of the ecologically sensitive Yamuna Bazar area.

On May 5, the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) issued notices to around 310 residential structures in Yamuna Bazar, directing occupants to vacate the area within 15 days, failing which demolition action could be initiated.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the petition filed by the Yamuna Bazar Residents Welfare Association challenging the notices was not maintainable as it lacked “binding affidavits” from residents to “bear the consequences” of the petition.

“This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This petition is not a PIL and has been filed by the association at the instance of residents. In the absence of authorisation, the petition is not maintainable,” the court said while rejecting the plea. The court, however, clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to file a proper petition with authorisation from residents.

In the petition, the association challenged the “mass eviction” notices issued by the DDMA, asserting that they were based on “generalised assumptions and speculative apprehension”.

It said the construction on the ghats was not a “recent encroachment” or in the nature of jhuggis, and that records showed the “long-standing continuity and recognition of Panda communities residing and performing religious functions at the said ghats”.

‘Serious threat’

According to the DDMA, Yamuna Bazar is “inundated during the annual Yamuna floods”, posing a serious threat to human life, cattle and property.

On May 18, on the directions of the DDMA, the Delhi Development Authority issued a fresh notice directing residents to “voluntarily vacate the government land and remove all encroachments, temporary or permanent structures, and belongings within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice”.

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) and the Centre on a plea alleging religious discrimination in the recruitment of the university’s outsourced non-teaching employees.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued the notices on the petition and granted JMI and the Centre four weeks to file its reply.

According to the petition, the grievance arises from a notification dated March 24, 2026, and a list of outsourced employees that purportedly shows that 720 out of 986 outsourced employees belong to a particular community. The plea claimed this gave rise to a “strong inference of discriminatory practices” in the recruitment process.

The petitioner argued that the recruitment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment.

The plea contended that JMI being a public authority, was bound to follow constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination.

The plea has sought the quashing of the March 24 notification and directions for a fresh and transparent recruitment process for the outsourced workers. The plea has also sought directions to the University Grants Commission to frame uniform guidelines governing recruitment of non-teaching staff in universities funded by it.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 13, 2026) rejected a petition against the blanket exemption from tax liability given to agricultural income in the capital.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia stated that the issue fell outside the court’s domain and it cannot direct the Delhi Government to legislate a law to introduce a new taxation framework.

“From the perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is asking us to issue a mandamus to the legislature to enact a particular law. Such a mandamus, in our opinion, is impermissible to be issued. The writ is highly misconceived and thereby dismissed,” the Court said.

Petitioner Aakash Goel, in his plea, said the “continued blanket exemption” of agricultural income from taxation for Delhi residents resulted in fiscal inequality and amounted to an arbitrary classification among taxpayers.

The plea said the petitioner was not seeking a “blanket imposition of tax on agricultural income”, as there was a distinction between economically vulnerable farmers and affluent individuals deriving agricultural income, and exempting high-net-worth individuals with agricultural income lacked the rational nexus with the object of protecting small farmers.

“In practice, only the states of Assam and West Bengal continue to levy agricultural income tax in an effective manner, primarily in relation to plantation crops, especially tea. The Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, and the West Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, remain in force and are operational, whereas most other states have either repealed their agricultural income-tax laws or reduced enforcement to a merely nominal level. In the National Capital Territory of Delhi, no such legislation exists at all, and agricultural income continues to remain fully exempt from taxation,” the plea said.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 13, 2026) refused to entertain a petition seeking measures to prevent suicides and asked the petitioner to approach the authorities with his representation.

“We acknowledge the rise in suicide cases, but what can be done? What directions can be issued? There are so many ills in society. What can be done?” a Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said.

“There is a situation prevailing in society. What can be done at the government level?” the Bench added.

The petitioner sought directions to the authorities for “institutional examination” and a “support system” to prevent suicidal tendencies.

The petitioner submitted that at present, a troubled individual has no platform to share his grievances.

The court remarked that no directions were required to be issued in the matter and suggested that the petitioner open an NGO to reach out to such people and take steps to prevent suicides.

“Everything that catches your imagination cannot become the subject matter of a PIL,” the Bench observed.

“We permit the petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authorities in the central/state government,” the court ordered, adding that once a representation is made, the authorities shall take an “appropriate decision”.

Those in distress can call the helplines listed here.