1. Criminal, Social Justice and Public Law

a) POCSO, sentencing and sexual offences

In Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that Section 354 IPC is not covered by Section 42 of the POCSO Act, meaning the trial court erred in not awarding a separate sentence for Section 354 IPC alongside POCSO convictions.[livelaw]

In Santosh Tiwari v. State, the Court upheld the conviction of a temple priest for raping an intellectually disabled woman, describing his conduct as “satanic and unholy” and recognising abuse of religious trust as an aggravating factor.[livelaw]

In State v. K, the Court cancelled bail granted to a teacher accused of raping a three‑year‑old school student, holding that absence of the teacher’s name in the first complaint cannot negate subsequent credible identification by such a young child.[livelaw]

b) Matrimonial maintenance and family pension

In XXX v. YYY, a Division Bench held that a wife is entitled to interim maintenance even during the appeal against a divorce decree; the appeal is a continuation of the matrimonial proceedings, and interim relief must continue until final adjudication.[livelaw]

In Savitri Devi v. Bank of Maharashtra, the Court refused to extend family pension to a widow beyond the scheme’s eligibility, holding that courts cannot rewrite or dilute express terms merely because the scheme is beneficial.[livelaw]

c) Tenders and foreign missions’ visa contracts

In E Trav Tech Ltd v. Union of India, a Division Bench quashed the MEA’s tender process for Consular, Passport and Visa outsourcing at missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra, finding the technical evaluation arbitrary and opaque and thus violative of fairness and transparency.[livelaw]

d) Public health and protest – Sonam Wangchuk

In Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India, the Court directed daily clinical monitoring and necessary treatment for climate activist Sonam Wangchuk during his hunger strike, stressing that “every life is precious” and the State has a duty of care.[livelaw]

In Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India, the Court refused to order his transfer to a private hospital of choice, holding that shifting him from Jantar Mantar to a government hospital was not arbitrary and fell within the State’s duty to protect life.[livelaw]

e) Media, “self‑styled reporters” and press freedom

In Abid Ali @ Aabi v. State & connected matters, the Court warned that freedom of press cannot be a shield for intimidation or irresponsible journalism by “self‑styled reporters” on social media, and called for regulatory introspection while still protecting legitimate media freedom.[livelaw]

2. IPR, Technology and AI – Delhi High Court’s July 2026 IPR Docket

a) AI training, copyright and ChatGPT – ANI v OpenAI

In ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC, the Court refused ANI’s request for an interim injunction against OpenAI for allegedly using its news content to train ChatGPT. Justice Amit Bansal observed that forcing AI developers to obtain licences from every content source used in training would make LLM development economically unviable and that AI models depend on public‑domain information.[scconline]

The Court held that ANI had not made out a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement at the interim stage, while upholding jurisdiction and leaving deeper questions of fair dealing and text‑and‑data mining to trial.[scconline]

b) Deepfakes, cloned voices and personality rights

• Ravi Kishan case: In Ravindra Shukla @ Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors., the Court ordered immediate takedown of AI‑generated deepfakes and cloned voice ads exploiting the actor‑MP’s persona; platforms like Google and X were directed to remove the content.[scconline]
• Yuvraj Singh case: In Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Court indicated it would direct takedown of infringing content, giving uploaders 48 hours to voluntarily remove it before compelling intermediaries to act.[scconline]
• Salman Khan / Kala Hiran*: In Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., the Court ordered specific teaser links for Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy to be removed but questioned “how far personality rights can be stretched”, distinguishing between legitimate personality protection and attempts to block artistic titles or content broadly.[scconline]
• Raghav Chadha case: In Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., the Court ordered removal of six “profane and vulgar” AI posts but refused to block other content categorised as political satire.[scconline]

Trend: The Court is drawing a line between protected satire and unlawful deepfake/AI impersonation, particularly where deception or commercial exploitation is involved.[scconline]

c) Platform liability, copyright strikes and piracy

In Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Court noted that Meta’s copyright‑strike system is being misused as a “platform for extortion” and directed Meta to provide subscriber details and IP logs of those allegedly abusing the system. A related PIL, Nitin Joshi v. Union of India & Ors., raises similar allegations about Instagram’s strike mechanism.[scconline]

Anti‑piracy litigation continued:

• HBO case: In Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors., the Court granted an ad‑interim injunction against 30 rogue sites streaming HBO content and ordered ISPs and DNRs to extend the order to mirror/redirect/alphanumeric versions after verification.[scconline]
• Sony sports rights cases: In multiple suits, including Sony Pictures Networks v. Cricgo.pro & Ors. and Sony v. Cricfree.cyou & Ors., the Court granted ex parte injunctions blocking sites infringing Sony’s exclusive sports broadcasting rights.[scconline]

In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Techtalkwithmalik & Ors., the Court ordered Reddit to disclose details of an anonymous user alleging a “Galaxy S26 blast in the box”, balancing reputational interests with online speech by focusing first on identification, not immediate takedown.[scconline]

d) Trademarks and well‑known marks

Key July 2026 trademark decisions include:

• Asian Paints Ltd v. Saroj Arora & Ors. – injunction against “Asia Paints” as deceptively similar to “ASIAN PAINTS”.[scconline]
• Industria De Diseno Textil (ZARA) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. – cancellation of “ZORA” as deceptively similar to the well‑known “ZARA” mark; Registrar’s refusal to treat ZARA as a well‑known mark was set aside.[scconline]
• Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. – dismissal of Parle’s attempt to block a rival “20‑20” registration; the rival’s earlier application prevailed despite Parle’s later commercial use.[scconline]
• ADS Spirits Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks – Court held “uniqueness” is not a statutory test for registration; the Registrar must focus on distinctiveness in relation to goods.[scconline]

Other strong injunctions:

• Opella Healthcare v. Pureca Laboratories – “PHENSERYL” restrained as deceptively similar to “PHENSEDYL”.[scconline]
• Nava Healthcare v. Antex Pharma – similar restraint protecting “HAIRFUL” and “UDIVIN”.[scconline]
• Dabur India v. MDL Herbal – ex parte restraint against use of “HAJMOLA”.[scconline]
• Havells India v. Havai Home Products – “HAVAI” restrained as deceptively similar to “HAVELLS”.[scconline]
• Zepto Ltd v. Naman Finlease – injunction against “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” for lending services, recognising “Zepto” as a coined term.[scconline]

e) Patents and pharma

• Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents – refusal of a patent for a cancer drug combination was set aside and remanded; the Court found the Controller’s Section 3(d)/3(i) and inventive‑step analysis unsatisfactory.[scconline]
• Intra‑Cellular Therapies Inc v. Controller of Patents – rejection of a psychiatric drug patent was upheld; mere improvement in bioavailability without true inventive step is insufficient.[scconline]
• Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents – plastic static mixer patent refused for being a “mere modification” over prior art.[scconline]
• Incyte Holdings Corp v. Aurore Life Sciences – ex parte injunction against manufacture/sale of Ruxolitinib products, recognising a clear prima facie infringement case.[scconline]