Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Recently, the Delhi High Court passed an ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement on trademark infringement by the Hero MotoCorp…
There in a recent case the Delhi High Court in a decision that has far-reaching implications to the press and…
Delhi High Court is in the midst of a big legal controversy, whether the Central Government can actually exercise its…
Introduction In a matter of weeks ago, the founders of an education app referred to as Sasta Wallah were in…
New Delhi, India July 21, 2025. In what can be described as major development that reiterate the effort towards faster…
The Delhi High Court put on hold the release of ‘Udaipur Files’ on July 10, 2025, on charges of procedural non-compliance. Petitioners Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and journalist Prashant Tandon objected to the CBFC certification of the film for promoting communal disharmony. The Court instructed them to approach the Centre under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The release of the film is stuck until the government makes a decision within a week after hearing both parties. The decision highlights statutory remedy and a judicious balance between free speech and public order.
The Supreme Court has upheld the 18-month prison sentence and conviction of a Delhi lawyer for making abusive and sexually insulting remarks about a woman judge in court. The judgment supports the judiciary’s stance to uphold decorum and dignity of judicial officials, particularly women, within the premises of the court.
The Delhi High Court ruled on the Chile-Peru “Pisco” naming dispute, directing the GI for Peru be “Peruvian Pisco” and Chile’s application for “Chilean Pisco” be processed. This decision, under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, clarifies homonymous GIs, preventing consumer confusion.
In Aakash Deep Chouhan Vs. CBI, the Delhi High Court adjudicated that systemic corruption is a subject of “public safety”, thereby allowing phone interceptions under current laws. Such surveillance was upheld by the court only if supported by due process, asserting stringent compliance with legal protections. This landmark ruling expands investigators’ powers against corruption while reiterating the necessity to weigh personal privacy against public interest.
In Celebi Airport Services v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court confirmed the government’s withdrawal of security clearance of Celebi on grounds of national security in spite of the allegation of procedural injustice on part of the company. The court concluded that national security reasons take precedence over a right to prior notice and hearing, in light of Supreme Court precedents. The ruling highlights restricted judicial review in sensitive cases and points to risks confronted by foreign firms engaged in strategic sectors in infrastructure.
