Delhi High Court

The TV Today Network Ltd. claimed that their reputation was affected and their total income declined following the defendant's defamatory remarks.

Delhi HC agreed that there should not be pilgrimage or glorification of the graves of the two Kashmirir terrorists.

UAPA accused Kalita had requested the Delhi High Court to direct the Delhi Police to preserve and reconstruct the case diaries, alleging that the police had tampered with them.

The Delhi High Court on Friday warned that costs will be imposed on Patanjali if an appeal filed by against a single judge order is found to be useless.

Rejecting Tasleem Ahmed’s plea, the court noted trial delays stemmed from the accused themselves, not the prosecution or judiciary, and reiterated that bail under UAPA remains an exception even with prolonged incarceration.

The court stressed that accusations against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were prima facie true, citing provocative speeches, WhatsApp groups and deliberate delays by co-accused, rejecting bail pleas that relied on prolonged incarceration and systemic delay arguments.

The “29 seconds” narrative spread rapidly on X, but the Delhi High Court had reserved its detailed 133-page judgment on 9th July 2025, pronouncing it nearly two months later after extensive hearings and deliberations.

Despite defence arguments on parity and prolonged incarceration, the Court held that Khalid, Imam and others played graver roles in the alleged conspiracy, stressing that bail decisions demand individual assessment and not automatic extension from co-accused.