Minor R (Through Her Father R) v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1804/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Judgment Date: 24 June 2026
Facts
The petitioner was a 15-year-old girl who became pregnant after being raped. She filed the petition through her father, asking the Delhi High Court for permission to terminate her pregnancy. At the time of filing, she was about 26–28 weeks pregnant, which was beyond the 24-week limit allowed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. An AIIMS Medical Board examined her physical and mental health and found that continuing the pregnancy would cause her serious psychological trauma. The Board also confirmed that she was medically fit to undergo abortion. Considering the Medical Board’s report and the fact that the pregnancy resulted from rape, the State did not oppose the request before the Court.
Legal Issue
Whether the High Court could allow the termination of a rape survivor’s pregnancy beyond the 24-week limit under the MTP Act by using its constitutional powers to protect her right to life, dignity, bodily autonomy, and mental health under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and gave permission to terminate the pregnancy. The Court held that although the MTP Act normally does not allow abortion after 24 weeks, constitutional courts can make an exception in special cases like this. Since the petitioner was a minor rape survivor and the Medical Board confirmed that continuing the pregnancy would seriously affect her mental health, the Court held that protecting her rights under Article 21 was more important. It directed AIIMS to carry out the procedure safely, preserve the foetal tissue for DNA testing in the criminal case, and ordered the State to bear all medical expenses. The Court also gave directions for the child’s care and adoption if the child was born alive.
Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8259/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia (Vacation Judge)
Judgment Date: 19 June 2026
Facts
Telegram challenged the Central Government’s order temporarily blocking its platform in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Government took this step after receiving reports that Telegram was being widely used to spread fake NEET-UG 2026 question papers, examination-related misinformation, and online scams targeting students. According to the authorities, removing individual channels and accounts was not enough because new channels and mirror groups kept appearing. Telegram argued that it had been cooperating with the Government by removing illegal content and that blocking the entire platform was unfair, excessive, and affected millions of genuine users. It also claimed that less restrictive measures could have been adopted instead of a complete temporary block.
Legal Issue
Whether the Central Government had the power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to temporarily block the entire Telegram platform, and whether such a platform-wide restriction was a proportionate and lawful measure to prevent examination fraud and protect public order.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed Telegram’s petition and upheld the Government’s decision. Justice Tejas Karia held that the Government had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act and had sufficient material to justify the temporary blocking of Telegram. The Court observed that Telegram’s features, such as large public channels, bots, message editing, and the easy creation of mirror channels, made it difficult to stop the spread of fake NEET papers through ordinary takedown requests. Since the restriction was temporary and limited to the examination period, the Court found it to be a reasonable and proportionate measure to protect the integrity of the NEET examination and maintain public order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Khuram Parvez v. National Investigation Agency
Case No.: CRL.A. 1234/2024
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Judgment Date: 10 June 2026
Facts
Khuram Parvez, a well-known human rights activist from Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency in November 2021 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The National Investigation Agency alleged that he had links with members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist organisation, helped recruit people, collected information about Indian security forces, and passed it on to handlers based in Pakistan. Khuram Parvez denied these allegations and argued that his work was related to human rights and that many of the documents relied on by the NIA were already available in the public domain. He also pointed out that he had been in jail for more than four and a half years, the trial had not yet started, and nearly 200 witnesses were still to be examined.
Legal Issue
Whether Khuram Parvez should be granted bail despite the strict provisions of the UAPA, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the long period of custody, the slow progress of the trial, and his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed Khuram Parvez’s appeal and granted him bail with several strict conditions. The Court observed that he had already spent more than four and a half years in custody, while the trial was still at the stage of framing charges and was unlikely to end soon. It held that although the allegations were serious, prolonged detention without a timely trial could violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court made it clear that it was not deciding whether he was guilty or innocent and that those issues would be decided during the trial. It also imposed conditions such as surrendering his passport, regularly appearing before the court, and not contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Delhi
Case No.: CRL. REF. 1/2024
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Judgment Date: 18 June 2026
Facts
The case began after a Metropolitan Magistrate noticed that many criminal cases under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act were being dismissed because the police filed the charge sheet more than six months after the offence was detected. In one such case, a person was accused of carrying out unauthorized construction without obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. Although the Deputy Commissioner had lodged a complaint with the police within six months and an FIR was registered on time, the charge sheet was filed later. The accused argued that this delay made the entire case invalid under Section 471 of the DMC Act. Since the same issue was arising in many cases across Delhi, the Magistrate referred important legal questions to the Delhi High Court for clarification.
Legal Issue
Whether Section 471 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act requires the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within six months, or whether the six-month limit applies only to filing the initial complaint about the offence.
Decision
The Delhi High Court held that Section 471 of the DMC Act does not require the police to complete the investigation or file the charge sheet within six months. The Court explained that the six-month limit applies only to the initial complaint made by the Municipal Corporation about the offence. Once the Deputy Commissioner files the complaint with the police and an FIR is registered within that period, the legal requirement is satisfied. Any delay by the police in completing the investigation cannot automatically result in the case being dismissed. The Court clarified the law to ensure that genuine prosecutions are not defeated merely because the charge sheet was filed after six months, especially when the complaint itself had been made in time.
Case: M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1/2017
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Judgment Date: 15 June 2026
Facts
DRS Logistics, the owner of the well-known trademarks “Agarwal Packers & Movers” and “DRS Logistics”, filed a contempt application against Google India and Google LLC. The company claimed that even after earlier court orders, Google continued to display advertisements of other packers and movers when users searched for DRS Logistics’ trademarks. According to DRS Logistics, this misled customers and allowed fake businesses to attract people looking for its services. It argued that Google had failed to follow the Court’s earlier directions and should be punished for contempt. Google denied the allegation and stated that it removes or blocks advertisements only after receiving a complaint from the trademark owner, in accordance with its advertising policy and the earlier court orders.
Legal Issue
Whether Google had deliberately violated the Delhi High Court’s earlier orders by allowing third parties to use DRS Logistics’ trademarks in online advertisements, making it liable for contempt of court.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt application and held that Google had not willfully disobeyed the earlier court orders. The Court explained that its previous directions mainly required Google to examine and act upon complaints made by DRS Logistics about the use of its trademarks as keywords. They did not require Google to continuously monitor every advertisement on its own. The Court also noted that after receiving DRS Logistics’ complaint, Google had removed the disputed advertisements under its policy. Since there was no deliberate or intentional violation of the Court’s orders, contempt proceedings could not be initiated. However, the Court clarified that if DRS Logistics finds similar advertisements in the future, it can report them to Google, which must promptly investigate and take appropriate action.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.
Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.