The bypoll has already emerged as one of the most closely watched political contests in Madhya Pradesh. While political parties are busy finalising their campaign plans and candidate strategies, uncertainty continues to surround Bharti's eligibility to contest the election.

The Datia seat fell vacant after Bharti's disqualification following his conviction in a case linked to alleged irregularities in a cooperative bank matter. After the conviction led to the loss of his Assembly membership, the Election Commission announced the by-election schedule, setting the stage for a politically significant contest in the Gwalior-Chambal region.

According to the election schedule, the process is already underway and the last date for filing nominations is drawing near. That has increased the urgency around Bharti's legal battle.

Sources familiar with the matter said Bharti has approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the conviction that resulted in his disqualification. The outcome of that petition is expected to play a crucial role in determining whether he can enter the electoral fray once again.

For the Congress, the situation presents both a challenge and a strategic dilemma.

Party leaders in the region have continued political preparations while awaiting clarity from the court. If Bharti receives relief before the nomination process concludes, the Congress could back him as its candidate. However, if the legal proceedings do not move in his favour within the available timeframe, the party may have to quickly identify an alternative face for the contest.

The uncertainty has also created intense political activity in Datia, where local workers from both major parties have begun mobilising supporters.

The Bharatiya Janata Party is treating the bypoll as an important electoral battle. Political observers believe the contest carries significance beyond a single Assembly constituency because it could offer an indication of voter sentiment ahead of future political contests in the state.

Datia has traditionally attracted attention due to its political importance in the Gwalior-Chambal belt. Any change in the electoral dynamics of the constituency is closely watched by both the BJP and the Congress.

Bharti has previously questioned the timing of the by-election and raised concerns over the circumstances under which the seat was declared vacant. Those arguments have become part of the broader political discussion surrounding the bypoll, though the legal proceedings remain separate from the electoral process.

Meanwhile, election officials are continuing preparations according to the announced schedule. Authorities have not indicated any change in the programme and all procedural activities are moving forward as planned.

Political analysts say every passing day is becoming increasingly important for Bharti because electoral timelines leave little room for delay. Even a favourable court order would need to come before key deadlines to have a practical impact on candidate selection and campaign planning.

For now, the focus remains firmly on the Delhi High Court, where the next developments could reshape the contest before nominations close. Until that clarity emerges, speculation is likely to continue in Datia's political circles, with both supporters and rivals closely monitoring the legal proceedings.

The by-election campaign has not fully gathered momentum yet, but the uncertainty surrounding Rajendra Bharti has already become one of the defining stories of the contest.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the restoration of the X (formerly Twitter) account of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) after the Central government informed the court that it had no objection to unblocking the account. The order brought an end to a legal dispute over the suspension of the satirical group's social media presence, with its founder describing the decision as a significant victory for free speech and digital rights.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that there was no longer any reason to continue blocking the account. The court subsequently directed that the account be restored.

Centre Explains Reason for Blocking

During the hearing, the Centre told the High Court that the account had been blocked as a precautionary measure ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) to prevent posts that could potentially create panic or confusion among lakhs of students and their parents.

According to the Solicitor General, the restriction was imposed during the examination period due to concerns that certain posts could disrupt the conduct of the entrance test. Since the examination has concluded, the government stated that it no longer objected to restoring the account.

The submission paved the way for the court to direct the immediate unblocking of the social media handle.

Court Had Earlier Sought Centre's Response

The matter had previously come up before the High Court on May 29, when the bench declined to grant immediate relief to the petitioner. At the time, the court observed that any decision on restoring the account required hearing the Union government's position because the issue involved broader legal and constitutional implications.

The court had also indicated that it would examine whether the social media platform could be directed to place the blocking order on record after receiving a comprehensive response from the Centre.

With the government withdrawing its objection during Tuesday's hearing, the court disposed of the matter by ordering restoration of the account.

Satirical Movement Gained Online Popularity

The Cockroach Janta Party is an online satirical collective that has gained visibility across social media platforms, particularly among younger audiences. Founded by Abhijit Dipke, who is based in Boston, the group uses humour and political satire to comment on issues including unemployment, institutional accountability, examination reforms and media freedom.

The movement gained momentum following remarks made during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, when a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant expressed concern over unemployed law graduates turning towards social media activism and Right to Information (RTI) campaigns. The Chief Justice later clarified that the observations were directed at individuals entering professions using forged qualifications and fake degrees, and were not intended as criticism of unemployed youth.

Campaigns Around Examination Issues

The group has also organised demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, demanding accountability over alleged examination paper leaks, including those related to NEET. Among its demands has been the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the handling of competitive examination controversies.

Following the High Court's order, Dipke described the restoration of the account as a "big win for free speech and digital rights," maintaining that satire and political commentary are essential components of democratic discourse.

The ruling is expected to contribute to the ongoing debate over the balance between government intervention on social media platforms and the protection of online freedom of expression.

The case revolves around Salman Khan’s allegations that the makers of the film have unlawfully used elements associated with his public identity and personality without authorization. The actor has approached the court seeking a stay on the film’s release, claiming that its promotional material and storyline could harm his reputation.

During the hearing before Justice Jyoti Singh, the court was informed that the film has not yet been submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for certification. Counsel representing the producers clarified that the project is not currently ready for release and assured the court that it would not be sent to the censor board before the next date of hearing.

With the producer’s submission yet to be formally recorded and the certification process still pending, the court chose to defer the matter rather than issue any immediate restrictions on the film.

The development was followed by a public response from producer Amit Jani, who took to social media shortly after the hearing. In his post, Jani said Salman Khan had not obtained any relief from the court and emphasized that no ban had been imposed on the film. He also stated that the matter would now be heard again on July 6.

The producer further remarked that courts function independently of celebrity influence and suggested that stardom would not determine the outcome of the case. He claimed that the film is planned for a large-scale global release and could eventually be screened across thousands of theatres worldwide.

Salman Khan’s petition alleges that the makers have incorporated references that closely resemble his public image. According to the plea, promotional content associated with Kala Hiran features a character bearing similarities to the actor, including a blue bracelet that has long been considered one of Salman’s signature style elements.

The actor has argued that such portrayals amount to a violation of his personality rights and could mislead audiences into associating him with the project. Personality rights generally protect an individual’s name, image, likeness and other identifiable characteristics from unauthorized commercial use.

Another major concern raised in the petition relates to the film’s reported depiction of the 1998 blackbuck hunting case, one of the most closely followed legal matters associated with Salman Khan over the years. The actor has contended that the film allegedly presents certain events inaccurately and could create a misleading narrative around the controversy.

The petition also objects to the reported inclusion of references linked to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and the widely discussed dispute that has drawn significant media attention in recent years. Salman Khan’s legal team has argued that any fictionalized or inaccurate representation of these issues could adversely affect his public image.

The court’s decision to postpone the hearing means the legal battle remains unresolved for now. However, the producer’s undertaking that the film will not be submitted for certification before the next hearing provides a temporary pause in the release process.

The outcome of the July 6 hearing is expected to be significant, as it could determine whether the film proceeds through the certification process or faces further legal scrutiny over the claims raised by the actor.

The instant messaging platform went offline following NEET paper leak allegations; Delhi High Court upheld the government's decision.

Telegram services are now fully restored across India, exactly seven days after the government ordered a blanket ban on the platform over its alleged role in circulating leaked and fake NEET question papers.

Users began reporting access to the app early Tuesday morning, with the platform reappearing on Google Play Store. However, several subscribers complained they were unable to download the app or sign in to their accounts. The issue affected users across both Jio and Airtel networks, while iPhone users found the app unavailable on the Apple App Store.

Late Tuesday night, the company confirmed all services were operational.

The temporary restriction was imposed on June 16 following widespread concerns that the messaging platform had become a conduit for circulating fraudulent content related to the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The government extended the ban through June 22 to prevent any disruptions during the re-examination held on June 21.

Officials said no irregularities were reported during the re-test.

Editing Feature Suspended Till June 30

Despite the restoration, Telegram will keep its message-editing feature disabled for Indian users until June 30, following government directives. This means users cannot modify sent messages, a move aimed at maintaining accountability on the platform during the ongoing examination season.

 Why Did the Government Block Telegram?

The Centre had accused the platform of failing to curb the circulation of leaked papers and fraudulent content related to the NEET examination. Authorities argued that Telegram's structure — allowing unlimited group members and usernames that enable anonymous posting — made it particularly vulnerable to misuse.

A senior official familiar with the matter said the decision was taken to ensure the integrity of one of India's most important medical entrance exams.

Interestingly, when the ban was imposed, many users questioned why WhatsApp wasn't subjected to similar restrictions. Officials point to fundamental differences between the two platforms. WhatsApp, with its default end-to-end encryption and limited group capacity of 1,024 members, operates differently from Telegram's model that permits unlimited participants and anonymous accounts. The presence of an India office and AI-based monitoring systems on WhatsApp also makes it easier to track suspicious activity.

Delhi High Court Upholds Restrictions

Telegram had challenged the government's order in the Delhi High Court. Last week, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the ban, stating that the restrictions were necessary to protect the fairness and dignity of a national-level medical entrance examination.

The court also rejected the company's argument that the government failed to follow proper legal procedure while implementing the ban.

Arrest Made in Rajasthan Paper Leak Case

Even as the ban was in place, authorities in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, arrested a student attempting to sell fake NEET papers through Telegram. The accused was using a US-based VPN to operate a channel named 'Paper Mafia'. Police are investigating whether the network extends beyond the student.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Economic Offences Wing FIR and the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering investigation against NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha, holding that the case lacked the ingredients of fraud or criminal breach of trust.

Court Grants Relief to NewsClick

The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) money laundering investigation in the foreign funding case involving NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her order, observed that the agencies had carried out extensive investigations without producing concrete evidence of fraud. The court said that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, they did not establish offences such as cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Why the court intervened

The High Court said the EOW FIR and the ED's money laundering case did not disclose the essential ingredients of fraud or breach of trust, and that continuing the proceedings would amount to a misuse of the legal process.

The judgment described the continuation of the proceedings as a misuse of the legal process and noted that fraud requires a deceived party, which was absent in the present case.

Origin of the Foreign Funding Case

The case originated from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police in August 2020. Investigators alleged that NewsClick received foreign direct investment (FDI) worth ₹9.59 crore from an American company, Worldwide Media Holdings LLC.

Authorities questioned the valuation of shares, claiming that shares with a face value of ₹10 were issued at a premium of ₹11,510 per share despite the company not being profitable. Investigators alleged that the structure was designed to bypass the 26% FDI cap applicable to Indian media organisations.

Following the FIR, the ED conducted searches at the offices of NewsClick, as well as at premises linked to directors and shareholders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Officials seized foreign currency, documents and digital devices during the raids.

The ED later stated that NewsClick had received ₹38.05 crore in foreign funds over three years, including ₹9.59 crore through FDI and ₹28.46 crore classified as export of services revenue.

Parallel Investigations and UAPA Case

The controversy widened in 2023 after BJP MP Nishikant Dubey referred to a New York Times report in Parliament and alleged that some journalists were involved in spreading Chinese propaganda. Union Minister Anurag Thakur also publicly alleged links between businessman Neville Roy Singham and entities associated with NewsClick.

On August 17, 2023, the Delhi Police Special Cell registered a separate case against NewsClick under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to promoting enmity and criminal conspiracy.

Purkayastha was arrested on October 3, 2023, in connection with that case. The Special Cell questioned 46 individuals and conducted searches at 31 locations linked to NewsClick and journalists associated with the platform. An 8,000-page chargesheet was filed in March 2024.

Multiple Agencies Involved

NewsClick is operated by PPK NewsClick Studio Private Limited and was founded by Purkayastha in 2009.

Over the course of the investigation, multiple agencies became involved, including the Delhi Police Special Cell, the EOW, the Income Tax Department, the ED and the CBI, each examining different aspects of the allegations related to foreign funding and compliance.

Implications of the High Court Order

The Delhi High Court's decision effectively ends the EOW FIR and the ED's related money laundering proceedings against NewsClick and Purkayastha. The court's observations on arbitrary action and the absence of evidence of fraud are likely to be closely examined in future disputes involving financial investigations and media organisations.

The order does not automatically dispose of other proceedings, including the separate UAPA case being pursued by the Delhi Police Special Cell.

Supreme Court allows Vinesh Phogat to compete in Delhi trials on May 30–31, granting relief after WFI's petition — primary keyword: Vinesh Phogat

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared an immediate path for Olympian wrestler Vinesh Phogat to take part in the Asian Games selection trials scheduled in Delhi on May 30–31, rejecting a last-minute petition by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) that sought to block her participation.

Bench decision, timeline
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed WFI’s petition against a Delhi High Court order that had allowed Phogat to compete. The High Court’s direction, issued on May 22, required that the entire trial be video recorded and supervised by independent observers appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

WFI had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Vinesh. The federation argued Phogat’s participation violated its rules on athletes returning from retirement, but the apex court refused to stay the high court order, effectively permitting her to enter the trials.

High-stakes selection
The Delhi trials on Saturday and Sunday will form the basis for final team selection for the Asian Games in Japan in September. Officials said selectors will evaluate performance across the two days and forward names to the IOA. With the Supreme Court’s clearance, Phogat is now eligible to contest in the 50kg category trials, according to sources familiar with the matter.

WFI's stance
WFI had earlier disqualified Phogat from domestic competitions until June 26, 2026, citing anti-doping provisions and the federation’s rule that athletes returning from retirement must give six months’ notice. The federation also issued a show-cause notice accusing Phogat of indiscipline and conduct that, it said, harmed the image of Indian wrestling.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, WFI argued the Delhi High Court order undermined federation governance and the application of UWW (United World Wrestling) rules. WFI officials declined comment outside court but had maintained their position that policy and process must be followed uniformly.

Phogat’s response, background
Vinesh Phogat, a two-time Commonwealth Games gold medallist and a 2024 Paris Olympian, had announced her retirement after a controversial disqualification at the Paris Games but withdrew that decision in December 2025, saying she aimed for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Phogat has been off the mat for roughly 18 months before ramping up training. She travelled to Gonda recently to take part in a National Ranking Tournament and posted videos alleging bias and mismanagement in domestic wrestling events. In earlier public statements, she accused former WFI president Brijbhushan Sharan Singh of sexual harassment and criticised the federation’s handling of competitions and refereeing — allegations that have been part of a broader controversy in Indian wrestling since 2023.

Legal and procedural safeguards
The Delhi High Court’s order emphasised transparency measures: continuous video recording of trials and oversight by SAI and IOA-appointed independent observers. The measures were intended to allay concerns raised by both sides about fairness and to ensure selections are based on performance rather than influence, a court official said.

Impact on team dynamics
Phogat’s participation has drawn attention within the wrestling fraternity and from political quarters: she is also a Congress MLA from Julana in Haryana. Selectors now face a sensitive task balancing legal directives, federation rules and on-ground performance. Coaches and rival athletes have expressed mixed reactions in private, with some welcoming the clarity and others cautioning about potential locker-room tensions ahead of the Asian Games.

What happens next
Trials will proceed in Delhi on May 30–31 under the supervision specified by the High Court. The SAI and IOA are expected to finalise observer appointments and confirm technical protocols later Friday, according to officials briefed on logistics. If Phogat performs to selectors’ expectations, she could be named in the Asian Games contingent to compete in Japan in September.

Legal avenues remain open for WFI to pursue its broader challenge on federation rules, but any further stay on these specific trials would require another urgent intervention — a step WFI did not take successfully before the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The court said the matter involves 'far-reaching issues' and sought the Centre's response on the blocking of the Cockroach Janta Party X account over national security concerns.

No immediate restoration

The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to order the immediate restoration of the Cockroach Janta Party’s X account, dealing a preliminary setback to the satirical online collective that had gathered millions of followers within weeks. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that while the petitioner’s arguments might have merit, the government must be heard first because the case carries “far-reaching issues”.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, who challenged the blocking of the party’s account under national security provisions. The court made it clear that any relief could only be considered after the Centre submits its stand.

Centre asked to respond

The Union government has been given four weeks to file a detailed reply. The next hearing is listed for July 6. The court also noted that neither the judges nor Dipke’s legal team have seen the actual blocking order so far.

X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has been asked to cooperate. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, indicated that the government had concerns about the platform’s conduct in this matter, remarking that the intermediary appeared to be “assisting” the petitioner.

Review panel to examine blocking order

In a notable direction, the court said the blocking order must be reviewed by the statutory committee formed under the Information Technology Rules. That committee is required to meet every two months and has the power to examine all aspects of such orders.

Since Dipke is currently based in Boston, USA, the court added that he could request permission to appear before the review panel through video conferencing. The bench observed that confidentiality concerns around the blocking order could be examined later, but for now the review mechanism must be allowed to function.

National security grounds

According to reports, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) directed X to withhold the CJP account under Section 69A of the IT Act after receiving inputs from the Intelligence Bureau that raised national security concerns. Dipke’s petition, filed through advocate Nakul Gandhi of NG Law Chambers, argues that the move is disproportionate and stifles political satire.

The government has not publicly disclosed the specific content that triggered the blocking order. The court acknowledged that the absence of such details makes it difficult to assess the case at this stage.

How the Cockroach Janta Party emerged

The Cockroach Janta Party started earlier this month as an online spoof movement that rapidly went viral, especially among young social media users. At its peak, the group claimed hundreds of thousands of followers on X and over 22 million on Instagram.

The name drew from a remark made by Chief Justice Surya Kant during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15. The CJI had spoken about unemployed young lawyers drifting toward social media and RTI activism, using the phrase “youngsters like cockroaches”. He later clarified that the comment targeted people using fake degrees, not unemployed youth in general. Dipke, who lives in Boston, repurposed the phrase to build a satirical platform commenting on unemployment, institutional accountability and media freedom.

Free speech arguments

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Dipke, argued that the CJP account was “pure satire” and requested temporary restoration of the account while the case proceeds. He suggested an intermediate solution – keeping individual posts blocked rather than the entire account.

The court was not persuaded to grant urgent relief. Justice Kaurav observed that this case appeared different from earlier instances where blocked accounts had been restored during legal proceedings, largely because the legal framework around such issues is still developing. “The reasons behind the blocking remain unclear,” the bench noted, adding that a full hearing after the government’s reply would be the appropriate course.

The court also asked the review committee to expedite its examination. For now, the Cockroach Janta Party’s X account stays blocked, and its millions of followers will have to wait until at least July for any possible clarity.

Kejriwal Argues Recusal Plea in Delhi HC in Excise Policy Case AAP chief appears in person before Justice Sharma's bench, demands judge step aside from liquor scam hearing

Kejriwal Reaches High Court

AAP national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal arrived at the Delhi High Court on Monday morning, accompanied by his wife Sunita Kejriwal, to personally argue a recusal application against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. Kejriwal filed an application calling for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, requesting her not to hear the matter.

The development marks a rare instance of a former chief minister choosing to argue his own case in court.

What the Recusal Plea Says

The application has been filed by Kejriwal in person, and he argued the same himself before Justice Sharma. The petition contended that the refusal to transfer the case gives rise to a "grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension" regarding the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.

Kejriwal claimed that his apprehension was based on Justice Sharma's past conduct, saying that on the very first day of the CBI's revision petition against his discharge, she proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous", even without hearing the other side.

The CBI's Position

Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that all respondents had been duly served and argued that the case did not require detailed replies or rejoinders, stating that the High Court only needed to examine the trial court record and the discharge order.

The CBI has contended before the Delhi High Court that the discharge order was "perverse" and tantamount to an acquittal without trial, alleging that the policy was manipulated to benefit certain private liquor entities in exchange for alleged bribes.

Background of the Case

The trial court's order on February 27, 2026, discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, concluding that the CBI's material did not disclose even a prima facie case. The court had also severely criticised the agency's investigation.

On March 9, 2026, Justice Sharma issued notice in the CBI's appeal and observed that the trial court's order was "prima facie erroneous." She also stayed the trial court's directive for departmental action against the investigating officer.

Failed Bid for Bench Transfer

Kejriwal and others had written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya requesting that the matter be transferred to another bench rather than the single bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. The HC declined the request.

The Chief Justice clarified that the matter had been assigned as per the roster and observed that any recusal decision must be taken by the concerned judge herself.

Supreme Court Also Approached

Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused have also approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the proceedings from Justice Sharma's bench. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, raise concerns over certain observations allegedly made by the judge during earlier hearings, particularly while dealing with bail applications in the same case.

Kejriwal also stated that Justice Sharma had earlier refused bail to many accused in the liquor policy case, and the Supreme Court had later granted them relief.

Political Stakes and What Comes Next

The case had become politically controversial, as Kejriwal was arrested and remanded to custody amid the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. AAP leader Manish Sisodia also spent 530 days in custody in the case.

The Delhi High Court has also issued notice to Kejriwal on a separate ED plea challenging his acquittal in cases concerning alleged non-compliance with PMLA summons, with further hearings scheduled for April 29. Whether Justice Sharma decides to recuse herself or continues to preside over the matter will now set the course for all pending hearings in the excise policy case, which remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in Indian politics today.

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order protecting the personality and publicity rights of Gautam Gambhir, head coach of the Indian men’s cricket team. The court restrained entities from using his name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without his consent, citing a sharp rise in AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.

A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order passed on March 25 and made public on Saturday, observed that Gambhir is among India’s most decorated cricketers. The court noted that unauthorised content and merchandise deriving commercial value from his goodwill and reputation amount to a violation of his personality rights.

Court Recognises Gambhir’s Stature in Indian Cricket

Justice Singh highlighted Gambhir’s distinguished cricketing career, noting that he has represented India in 242 international matches across Tests, ODIs, and T20Is. The court specifically mentioned his match-winning innings in the 2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final and the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup Final, describing them as defining moments in Indian cricket history.

Following his retirement, the court observed, Gambhir transitioned into mentorship and coaching roles before being appointed head coach of the Indian men’s team in July 2024. “Under his stewardship, India won the ICC Champions Trophy, 2025, Asia Cup, 2025, and ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, 2026,” the order stated, underscoring his continued relevance in the public eye.

Deepfakes and Unauthorised Merchandise Prompt Legal Action

Gambhir had approached the court seeking protection, citing a coordinated campaign of digital impersonation. According to his petition, there has been a sharp rise in fabricated digital content relating to him across platforms such as Instagram, X, YouTube, and Facebook since 2025.

The court was informed that multiple accounts have used AI tools, including face-swapping and voice-cloning technologies, to create realistic videos falsely portraying Gambhir as making statements he never made. One fabricated “resignation announcement” reportedly garnered over 2.9 million views, causing significant reputational concern.

Additionally, the petition stated that e-commerce platforms were facilitating the sale of posters, merchandise, and other products bearing Gambhir’s name and likeness without authorisation, commercially exploiting his persona.

Court Orders Takedown, Restrains Future Use

Justice Singh directed the concerned entities to take down the infringing content within 36 hours. The interim order restrains any person or entity from using Gambhir’s name, image, voice, or other attributes of his personality for commercial purposes without his explicit consent.

Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces the growing recognition of personality rights as a distinct legal protectable interest in India, particularly in the context of emerging AI technologies. The court’s observation on the coordinated nature of the impersonation campaign also highlights the increasing judicial awareness of digital manipulation risks faced by public figures.

Broader Implications for Public Figures

The order comes amid growing concerns over AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial use of celebrity personas. Legal observers say the judgment sets a precedent for other public figures seeking recourse against digital impersonation and brand misappropriation.

While the interim order provides immediate relief to Gambhir, the matter remains pending further adjudication. The case also underscores the challenges faced by celebrities and public personalities in protecting their digital identity in an era of rapidly advancing generative AI tools.

What’s Next

The court has listed the matter for further hearing at a later date. Meanwhile, social media platforms and e-commerce websites are expected to comply with the takedown directive. The order is being seen as a significant step in balancing free expression with the protection of individual personality rights in the digital age.

The Delhi High Court's Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on Sunday, March 15 declined former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request to transfer the CBI's appeal against his discharge in the Delhi excise policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. In a written communication on the administrative side, the Chief Justice stated that the matter had been assigned to Justice Sharma in accordance with the existing court roster, and there was no ground to order a transfer.

Background: Trial Court Discharge and CBI's Challenge

On February 27, 2026, a Special CBI Court at Rouse Avenue discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused persons in the Delhi excise policy case — delivering a sharply worded indictment of the CBI's investigation, calling the agency's case wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny. The trial court found no overarching conspiracy and held that the excise policy had been formulated through a proper consultative and deliberative process.

Kejriwal, who had spent six months in jail in connection with the case, broke down after the verdict and described the corruption charges against him as the biggest political conspiracy in the history of independent India.

The CBI immediately challenged the discharge order before the Delhi High Court, filing a revision petition arguing that the trial court's order was perverse and effectively amounted to an acquittal before trial. The petition was assigned to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench.

March 9 Hearing Triggers Bias Concerns

At the first hearing of the CBI's revision petition on March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and all 21 other accused. The bench stayed the trial court's directions that had called for departmental proceedings against the CBI's investigating officer. Justice Sharma also recorded a prima facie observation that certain findings in the trial court's discharge order appeared to be erroneous. Additionally, the bench directed the trial court hearing the connected Enforcement Directorate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to defer its proceedings pending the High Court's decision on the CBI petition — even though the ED had not been made a party to the CBI revision petition and had not sought that relief.

These developments prompted Kejriwal to file a formal representation on March 11 before Chief Justice Upadhyaya seeking an administrative transfer of the case.

Kejriwal's Case for Transfer

In his representation, Kejriwal argued that he had a genuine, serious, and reasonable apprehension that the matter would not receive a hearing marked by complete impartiality and neutrality before Justice Sharma's bench. He pointed to multiple grounds for this concern.

Kejriwal argued that Justice Sharma had previously heard several matters arising from the same excise policy investigation and had recorded detailed prima facie observations on the same core facts and roles of the accused — observations that would now be central to the CBI's revision petition as well. He highlighted that multiple orders passed by Justice Sharma's bench in those earlier excise-related matters had subsequently been set aside by the Supreme Court, with the apex court granting relief to the accused persons in three matters and referring a fourth to a larger bench.

He also objected to the fact that during the March 9 hearing, the court had intervened on behalf of the ED — directing deferral of PMLA proceedings — without the ED being a party before it, without any such prayer from the CBI, and without hearing the discharged accused. He contended that granting only one week to respond in a case involving voluminous records spanning five charge sheets and 23 accused persons further reflected a predisposition toward speed that disadvantaged the respondents.

"Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done," his representation stated, adding that the concern raised was institutional rather than personal.

Chief Justice's Response

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, in his written communication declining the request, stated clearly that the matter was assigned to Justice Sharma as per the current roster, that he found no reason to order a transfer on the administrative side, and that if any question of recusal arose, that decision rested solely with Justice Sharma herself as the judge hearing the matter.

"The petition is assigned to the Hon'ble Judge as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the Hon'ble Judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side," the Chief Justice stated.

What Happens Next

The CBI's revision petition is listed for its next hearing before Justice Sharma's bench on March 16 — Monday. The court has already issued notice to all 23 discharged accused and indicated that certain observations of the trial court prima facie appeared erroneous and required consideration. The direction to defer proceedings in the connected ED-PMLA case also remains in force until the revision petition is decided.

Manish Sisodia, who spent two years in jail in connection with the case before being granted bail, had separately filed his own representation before the Chief Justice seeking the same transfer — a request that stands equally declined by Sunday's communication.

Bollywood actress Celina Jaitly has received significant relief in her long-running legal struggle for her brother, Retired Major Vikrant Jaitly, who has been in UAE custody since September 2024. In a key development, the Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to facilitate legal assistance and ensure the safety of the former Indian Army officer.

The order comes after nearly 16 months of detention, during which Celina repeatedly raised concerns about lack of communication and legal access for her brother. The latest court intervention marks a turning point in the Celina Jaitly brother UAE custody case, which has drawn attention to the challenges faced by Indian citizens detained abroad.

Delhi High Court Steps In for Legal and Diplomatic Support

During a hearing held on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court instructed the Ministry of External Affairs to urgently coordinate legal support for Major Vikrant Jaitly and ensure his well-being while in UAE custody. The court emphasised the need for structured diplomatic and legal intervention, especially given the prolonged detention.

Celina Jaitly confirmed the development through a post on her official social media account, calling it a “big step to protect the rights of a soldier.” She shared that, after months of effort, legal arrangements for her brother have finally been put in place.

UAE Law Firm Appointed to Handle the Case

Following the court’s directive, a prominent UAE-based legal firm, Khalid Almarri & Partners Advocates, has been engaged to represent Major Vikrant Jaitly. Notably, the firm has agreed to handle the case pro bono, working to protect his rights under international law.

Legal experts say this move is crucial, as cases involving national security laws in foreign jurisdictions often require local legal expertise and diplomatic coordination.

Celina Jaitly Thanks MEA for Support

Expressing gratitude, Celina Jaitly publicly thanked the Ministry of External Affairs for its cooperation. She stated that she is confident her brother will return home safely, highlighting his years of service to the nation.

Her statements have resonated widely, sparking conversations around the legal protections available to Indian citizens detained overseas.

Background: 16 Months of Detention in UAE

Major Vikrant Jaitly retired from the Indian Army and had been living in Dubai since 2016. In September 2024, he was taken into custody by UAE security agencies in connection with a national security-related case. Since then, his family claims there has been little to no direct communication.

Unable to intervene legally from India, Celina eventually approached the Delhi High Court, seeking MEA assistance after exhausting all other options.

Why This Case Matters Now

The Celina Jaitly brother UAE custody case highlights the importance of diplomatic channels, legal access, and consular support for Indians abroad. As global mobility increases, such cases underline the role of the government in safeguarding citizens’ rights beyond national borders.

With legal help now in place, the coming weeks are expected to be critical in determining the next steps in the case.

In a case that underscores the perilous position of civilians caught in geopolitical conflicts, the fate of Sahil Mahmad Husen Majothi, a 22-year-old Indian student from Gujarat, remains uncertain. Detained by Ukrainian forces after being allegedly coerced into fighting for Russia, Majothi's safe return to India now hinges on urgent diplomatic efforts. With talks of new prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine emerging, his legal team is raising an alarm, warning that his repatriation to Russia could be disastrous .

The Delhi High Court has intervened, directing the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to take "urgent steps" to bring him home . However, a critical diplomatic gap on the ground and the complex machinery of war-time prisoner swaps have left his family in agonizing suspense.

A Student's Descent into the War Zone

Sahil Majothi's ordeal began in early 2024 when he traveled to St. Petersburg on a student visa to pursue a course in Russian language and culture at ITMO University . To support himself, he worked part-time as a courier. His family claims that in April 2024, he was falsely implicated in a narcotics case, arrested, and later sentenced to seven years in a Russian prison .

Facing a lengthy prison term, Majothi says he was given a choice: sign a contract with the Russian military or remain incarcerated. He chose the former, calling it the "biggest mistake" of his life . After minimal training, he was deployed to the front lines in Ukraine in October 2025, where he surrendered to Ukrainian forces within days . He has since been held in a Ukrainian military facility.

Courts Direct, But Diplomacy Lags

With representations to the government yielding little result, Majothi's mother, a cancer patient, approached the Delhi High Court. In a significant order, Justice Sachin Datta observed that the student appeared to have been compelled to join the Russian Army under duress and directed the Centre to "take all steps to bring him back" .

The court mandated:

   Appointing a liaison officer to coordinate with Ukrainian authorities.

   Securing consular access to Majothi.

   Filing a status report on the actions taken .

Despite this clear judicial directive, progress has been slow. Advocate Deepa Joseph, who met Majothi in Ukraine in early January, reported a lack of affirmative response from the MEA and highlighted slow coordination, stating the Indian ambassador was unavailable during her visit .

The Looming Threat of a Prisoner Exchange

The most immediate danger to Majothi's safety is the potential for him to be included in a prisoner-of-war exchange between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine's Ombudsman office has confirmed that talks for a new swap are underway .

Historic Precedent: The two nations have conducted multiple large-scale swaps, including one of 303 prisoners each in May 2025 .

Grave Risk: If Majothi is transferred to Russia as part of such an exchange, his lawyer warns that Russian authorities could be "very hostile" towards him for surrendering .

This creates a race against time for Indian diplomacy to secure his direct repatriation to India before he is swept into the broader exchange mechanism.

A Warning to Others and a Test for Indian Diplomacy

From custody, Majothi has sent video messages pleading for help from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar . He also issued a public warning: "Those coming to Russia for higher studies or work should be very careful. There are many scammers here" .

His case is not isolated. The Indian government has previously called for the release of other nationals reportedly serving with the Russian military . This situation tests India's diplomatic resolve and its ability to protect citizens abroad in complex conflict zones where traditional consular access is constrained.

The coming weeks are critical. The Delhi High Court continues to monitor the government's actions, and the window to extract Majothi from the prisoner-exchange pipeline is narrowing. His safe return will require not just diplomatic requests, but decisive and creative statecraft to navigate a brutal war and bring one young student home.