New Delhi, Jan 2 : From protecting personality rights in the digital age to reaffirming access to electricity as a basic human necessity, the Delhi High Court delivered a series of landmark judgments throughout the year. Here is a year-end wrap of some of the most significant High Court rulings.

Protecting Personality Rights:

The Delhi High Court has taken the lead in protecting personality and publicity rights amid the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and online commercial exploitation. In December, a single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of actor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, restraining online marketplaces, AI platforms, websites and unidentified entities from misusing his name, image, voice, likeness and other attributes for commercial gain.

In a similar court ruling, the Delhi High Court protected the personality rights of former India captain Sunil Gavaskar, directing social media intermediaries and e-commerce platforms to take down unauthorised content and merchandise misusing his identity.

In recent months, several public figures -- including actors Nagarjuna, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, filmmaker Karan Johar, podcaster Raj Shamani and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar -- secured similar reliefs.

Electricity as a Fundamental Right:

Reaffirming the constitutional protection of basic amenities, the Delhi High Court directed BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to restore electricity to a tenant's premises without insisting on an NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the landlords. It ruled that electricity is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and cannot be denied due to a pending landlord-tenant dispute. The Delhi High Court rejected the argument that the absence of an NOC could justify continued disconnection, observing that possession cannot be termed unlawful until a competent court orders eviction.

"No citizen can be expected to live a life devoid of basic necessities such as electricity," it said, while directing restoration through the existing meter and allowing police assistance if required.

Unnao rape case -- Sentence Suspension, Public Outcry and SC intervention:

One of the most debated rulings of the year came when the Delhi High Court suspended the life sentence of expelled Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and granted him bail pending appeal. Though it imposed stringent conditions, the decision triggered widespread criticism and protests. Sengar was not able to walk out of the jail due to a separate conviction linked to the death of the survivor's father.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court order, citing "peculiar facts" and clarifying that Sengar would not be released.

Mandatory e-KYC for Domain Registrations:

In a sweeping 248-page judgment, the Delhi High Court issued stringent directions mandating strict e-KYC verification of domain name registrants, holding that anonymity in registrations had flared up online fraud, phishing and consumer deception. Deciding a batch of suits filed by Dabur India Limited, a single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh rejected the practice of "privacy by default", observing that masking identities without verification had become a key enabler of financial fraud.

The Delhi High Court directed all domain name registrars operating in India to verify registrant details at registration and periodically thereafter, in line with CERT-In norms, and to disclose verified data to authorities within 72 hours when sought. It warned that non-compliance could result in loss of safe harbour protection and even blocking under the IT Act. The judgment also urged the Union government to explore a uniform e-KYC framework, balancing fraud prevention with data protection, while ensuring compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.

National Herald Case:

The Delhi High Court issued notice to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others on a criminal revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court's refusal to take cognisance of its money laundering complaint in the National Herald case. A single-judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja listed the matter for March 2026, reopening a debate on the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED said that the trial court's order, if allowed to stand, would render the PMLA redundant, asserting that the anti-money laundering law does not prescribe any specific mode for initiating proceedings. The case, involving the alleged acquisition of assets worth more than Rs 2,000 crore, continues to remain one of the most politically sensitive before the Delhi High Court.

Relief to Mahua Moitra:

In another significant ruling, the Delhi High Court set aside a Lokpal order granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a charge sheet against the Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query case. It held that the Lokpal failed to consider the public servant's submissions before granting sanction. Directing reconsideration within one month, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice cannot be diluted even at the stage of sanction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.

Reinstatement of HIV-Positive BSF Constable:

The Delhi High Court ordered reinstatement of a BSF constable discharged solely for being HIV-positive, holding that the termination violated the HIV/AIDS Act, 2017, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. A bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that there was "not even an attempt" to comply with the statutory mandate requiring an independent medical assessment and consideration of reasonable accommodation.

The Delhi High Court held that an HIV-positive employee falls within the definition of a person with disability and is entitled to protection against discrimination. While denying back wages, it granted continuity of service and benefits, reinforcing workplace equality and dignity.

Mutual Consent Divorce -- Courts Can Waive Statutory Timelines:

In a landmark Full Bench ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that courts are not bound to mechanically enforce statutory waiting periods in divorce by mutual consent. It held that both the one-year separation requirement and the six-month cooling-off period under the Hindu Marriage Act can be waived in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity.

Refusal of Conjugal Relations Constitutes Mental Cruelty:

The Delhi High Court upheld a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, noting that the marriage had remained unconsummated from inception. Relying on documentary evidence and communications, it held that persistent denial of conjugal relations amounted to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Release of Rolex Watch:

The Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to release a seized Rolex watch after authorities failed to issue a mandatory show-cause notice within the statutory period. Holding continued detention "impermissible", it reiterated that bona fide personal effects of travellers are not dutiable imports and that procedural lapses automatically trigger release.

The Delhi HC Rejects Bail in 2020 'Larger Conspiracy' Case:

The Delhi High Court in September dismissed the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had reserved its decision after hearing extensive submissions from the accused and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police.

Opposing bail, the SG said that prolonged incarceration could not justify release, asserting that the accused were part of a "well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy" timed to coincide with the visit of US President Donald Trump in 2020. Terming it a "premeditated attack on the sovereignty of the nation", SG Mehta said the accused were not protesting against a law but planning something sinister.

In December, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's order, with the accused facing Unlawful Activities Prevention Act charges and having spent more than five years in custody.

/IANS