Delhi Courts Weekly: Charges Framed in IRCTC Scam, UAPA Debates Continue, and Personality Rights Take Center Stage

New Delhi – A significant week in the capital's courts saw the framing of corruption charges against prominent political figures in the long-running IRCTC scam, while intense legal arguments in the 2020 Delhi riots cases continued to test the boundaries of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Concurrently, a surge in litigation by celebrities like Hrithik Roshan and Kumar Sanu has pushed the evolving doctrine of 'personality rights' into the judicial spotlight, signaling a new frontier in intellectual property and privacy law.

---

High-Profile Corruption Case Moves to Trial as Yadavs Plead Not Guilty

In a major development, a Delhi court has formally framed charges of corruption against former Union Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and their son Tejashwi Yadav in connection with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) scam. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts concluded that the material presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was sufficient to proceed to trial. All three political leaders pleaded "not guilty," officially setting the stage for a protracted legal battle.

The case alleges that during Lalu Prasad Yadav's tenure as Railway Minister, contracts for the maintenance of two IRCTC hotels were illicitly awarded in exchange for a prime parcel of land in Patna transferred to his family members at a significantly undervalued rate. The court’s decision to frame charges, which follows months of extensive arguments from both the prosecution and the 14 accused, marks a critical juncture. It indicates a prima facie finding that the evidence warrants a full trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The order noted the "voluminous record" and proceedings that "stretched over several months even with day to day hearing," underscoring the complexity of the matter.

For legal practitioners, this development reinforces the judiciary's role in scrutinizing evidence at the charge stage, a crucial filter in the criminal justice system. The court's satisfaction with the existing material provides the prosecution with a significant boost as the case transitions from pre-trial hearings to the evidentiary phase.

Scrutiny of UAPA and Evidence in Delhi Riots Cases

Delhi's Karkardooma Courts remained a focal point for debates surrounding the stringent UAPA, with several high-profile accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case making headlines.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai heard forceful arguments from Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, counsel for Umar Khalid, who contended that the prosecution's "larger conspiracy" case is built on a precarious foundation. Pais argued that the case lacks any physical evidence, financial trail, or recovery linking his client to the alleged conspiracy. He asserted, “You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything, and call it a UAPA case. The prosecution’s case is that it doesn’t need evidence, it only needs statements.” This line of argument directly challenges the evidentiary standards in UAPA cases, where witness statements, often recorded much later, form the crux of the prosecution's narrative. Pais's submissions highlight a critical question for the courts: at what point does a reliance on delayed, uncorroborated statements fail to meet the threshold for framing charges under such a severe statute?

In related proceedings before the same judge, United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi was granted 10 days of interim bail on humanitarian grounds to attend a family wedding and visit his ailing 85-year-old mother. While acknowledging the prosecution's point that the bride was not a "closest relative," the court found the circumstances—a verified marriage and the advanced age of Saifi's mother—justified a temporary release. This order illustrates the discretionary power of courts to grant relief even in serious UAPA cases when compelling humanitarian reasons are established.

Meanwhile, Sharjeel Imam, another UAPA accused, strategically withdrew his interim bail application, which was filed to contest the Bihar Assembly elections. His counsel informed the court that with his regular bail plea pending before the Supreme Court, the apex court was the more appropriate forum to consider the interim request. This procedural move underscores the complex, multi-layered litigation strategies employed by the defense in UAPA matters.

The Rise of Personality Rights: Celebrities Seek Judicial Protection

A notable trend this week was the Delhi High Court's active engagement with the concept of personality and publicity rights. In a significant order, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted relief to actor Hrithik Roshan, directing the removal of online content that infringed upon his rights by using his name, image, and likeness for commercial purposes without authorization. Roshan's counsel, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, argued, “Bags, T-shirts, and other merchandise are being manufactured using my name... The defendants are using my voice… similarly, My Lords, the AI chatbox is talking as if it were the plaintiff.” The court, however, cautiously declined to issue an ex-parte takedown order for fan pages, instead directing the defendants to provide subscriber information so the page creators could be impleaded and heard.

This case was followed by veteran singer Kumar Sanu approaching the same judge, seeking comprehensive protection for his name, voice, image, and even his distinct "vocal style" and "mannerisms." His plea specifically highlighted the emerging threat of AI-driven voice cloning and deepfakes, citing a morphed video showing him singing for a political figure.

These cases, viewed alongside a recent interim order from a Hyderabad court protecting actor Chiranjeevi's personality rights, confirm a nationwide judicial trend. Courts are increasingly recognizing a celebrity's persona as a valuable, protectable asset and are willing to issue injunctions against its unauthorized commercial exploitation, especially in the age of AI and digital media. This evolving jurisprudence is creating new precedents for intellectual property lawyers navigating the intersection of privacy, publicity, and technology.

Other Key Developments

• PFI Ban Challenge Held Maintainable: In a procedural victory for the proscribed Popular Front of India (PFI), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya held that it has jurisdiction under Article 226 to hear a petition challenging the UAPA Tribunal's order which had upheld the Centre's five-year ban. The court issued notice to the Union government, affirming its power of judicial review over the Tribunal's decisions.

• Karti Chidambaram's Bail Condition Eased: The Delhi High Court modified a bail condition for Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media case, removing the requirement to seek prior trial court permission for foreign travel. Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that a two-week prior intimation to the court and the CBI would suffice, balancing Chidambaram's duties as an MP with the concerns of the investigating agency.

• OTT Accessibility Rules: The Centre informed the Delhi High Court that it will finalize accessibility guidelines for persons with hearing and visual impairments on OTT platforms within three months. Justice Sachin Datta recorded this assurance while disposing of a petition, marking a step forward in digital inclusivity for persons with disabilities.

• Undertrial's Religious Attire: In a case concerning the rights of undertrial prisoners, the Patiala House Court allowed Chaitanyanand Saraswati, accused in a molestation case, to wear his 'Sanyasi' robe in jail, despite police opposition. The court, however, denied his plea for copies of seizure memos at this stage.

As the legal year progresses, the developments of this week—from the trial of political heavyweights and the rigorous interpretation of anti-terror laws to the charting of new territory in personality rights—reflect the dynamic and consequential nature of the proceedings within Delhi's courts.