Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27 To November 02, 2025
The Delhi High Court issued numerous rulings covering diverse legal issues, including contempt proceedings against an advocate, police conduct towards women, firm registration under Partnership Act, sex determination practices, and company property return obligations. Key decisions addressed anticipatory bail conditions, evidentiary standards in narcotics cases, arbitral awards, and rights under the Domestic Violence Act. The court also addressed employment disputes, digital access in education, and disabilities rights under the RPwD Act.
During the week of October 27 to November 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered several significant judgments across criminal, civil, and administrative law. The court discharged a lawyer in a contempt case involving misconduct towards a woman judge and emphasized police officers’ duty to treat women with dignity. It clarified that unregistered firms could file suits under the Partnership Act if statutory or common law rights are involved. The court condemned sex determination practices for undermining female life. It ruled on employer-employee disputes, holding employees strictly liable for returning company property, and confirmed Customs Housing Agents’ responsibilities over their employees. The court also discussed anticipatory bail denial when an accused posts defamatory content on social media and upheld the protection of daughter-in-law residential rights under the Domestic Violence Act vis-à-vis senior citizens' housing rights. Other rulings included quashing an attempt to murder case against a commentator, stressing the importance of justice over delay in witness recall, and ordering retrospective payment to law researchers. The court dealt with arbitration proceedings, dismissed challenges to film certification, and supervised digital platforms for rare disease treatment crowdfunding. It held rejecting physically disabled candidates for lack of vacancies breaches the RPwD Act and reformed bail and prosecution procedures to prevent double jeopardy. These diverse rulings reflect the court’s focus on upholding statutory protections, enhancing procedural fairness, and promoting social and legal justice in multiple spheres.
