This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Noori Jama Masjid’s demolition, JioStar’s Exclusive Media Rights, Anjana Om Kashyap’s fake YouTube impersonation, Raj Shamani’s personality rights, tarnishing railways’ image by YouTuber Manish Kashyap, Al-Qaeda operative recruiting youths to terror groups, Bareilly Violence Case, Atiq Ahmed’s brother-in-law’s bail plea in Umesh Pal murder case, Punjab University Senate elections, cuts in film “HAAL”, is ‘METRO’ a well-known mark, sale of counterfeit ‘GOLD FLAKE’ cigarettes.
ADMINISTRATION LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | State Pond Auction mechanism called ‘Quite Devious’; State response sought on non-grant of fishing leases to auction winners
In a writ petition filed seeking execution of the lease deed of a pond that he bought in a government auction, the division Bench of Prashant Kumar and Shekhar B. Saraf, JJ., directed the Director of UP Fisheries Department to file a report regarding the number of ponds available with the State for leasing, conducted auctions, cancelled auctions, and existing fishing leases. [Malik v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7540, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Further demolition of Fatehpur’s Noori Jama Masjid stayed
In a writ petition filed by the managing committee of Noori Jama Masjid, Fatehpur, against a demolition notice and subsequent partial demolition of the Mosque, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Arun Kumar, JJ., directed that no further action of the demolition shall take place in the Mosque till the next date, i.e., 17-11-2025. [Managing Committee, Noori Jama Masjid v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 754, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Hearing accused public servant before directing investigation mandatory under Sec. 20 of Lokpal Act’
Explaining the scope of the procedural safeguards under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Act), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal, J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J*, held that requirement of considering the explanation of the accused public servant under Section 20(3) of the Act is mandatory in nature and leaves no scope for discretion. Accordingly, the Court allowed the instant writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. [Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India, W.P.(C) No. 16035 of 2025, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Letter consenting to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator doesn’t constitute waiver under Sec. 12 (5) of Arbitration Act’
In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an interim award dated 6-9-2019 (‘impugned award’) wherein the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for impleadment of Respondent 2, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that a letter consenting to the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator does not amount to waiver under Section 12(5) of the Act. Thus, the Court held the appointment of the sole arbitrator to be void ab initio and set aside the impugned award. [Alpro Industries v. Ambience Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8373, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
Bail
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Umesh Pal murder case| Granting bail would send wrong signal: Atiq Ahmed’s brother-in-law’s Bail plea denied
In the appeal filed by Akhlakh Ahmad, brother-in-law of Atiq Ahmed, who was accused of collaborating in murder of Umesh Pal (‘deceased’), prime witness in MLA Raju Pal’s murder, challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge wherein bail was denied to him, a Single Judge Bench of Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J., held that granting bail in a case of such magnitude and societal impact could send a wrong signal and undermine the administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appeal and stated that the possibility of the accused, a relative of a key conspirator, influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. [Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7321, decided on 7-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PATNA HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail granted to YouTuber Manish Kashyap accused of tarnishing image of railways by uploading video of people tampering with train tracks
In an anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Tirupurari Kumar Tiwari, famously known as Manish Kashyap, regarding an FIR filed against him for a video he uploaded about people inserting stones between railway tracks, the Single Judge Bench of Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., allowed the application, considering that the video was, prima facie, gathered from social media without changes in its content for informing the Ministry of Railway. [Tirupurari Kumar Tiwari @ Manish Kashyap v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3139, decided on 12-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to alleged Al-Qaeda operative recruiting youths to terror groups
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking release in connection with a case pending before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, wherein the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 21, 28, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) read with Section 124(A) of the Penal Code, (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., held that prolonged detention in custody could not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of the serious allegations of indulging in unlawful activities and propagating anti-national ideology. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and did not consider it proper to grant bail, especially when the petitioner was already convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. [Md. Abdur Raheman v. State of Orissa, BLAPL NO. 644 of 2025, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Person already on bail cannot be subjected to preventive detention under MPDA Act
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a preventive detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (‘MPDA Act’), the Division Bench of M.S. Karnik* and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ., while quashing the detention order held that the Detaining Authority failed to consider the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court and that preventive detention on the same charges was not the proper remedy. The Court highlighted that the in-camera statements relied upon were recorded prior to the enlargement of the petitioner on bail, and there was nothing on record to indicate that after being released on bail, the petitioner indulged in any criminal activities. [Haridas Shankar Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4349, 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Liberty granted through bail remains illusory as he is still languishing in jail’; consolidated bail bonds permitted for accused in CSR Funds Scam
The issue was whether an accused facing multiple criminal cases could be permitted to execute a consolidated bail bond instead of separate bonds in each case. A Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Joseph, J., emphasising the peculiar circumstance where bail had already been granted in various cases relating to CSR Funds Scam, yet the accused was still in custody, held that a single surety bond executed within each district could be treated as sufficient for all cases pending in that district. [K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala, WP (CRL.) No. 1183 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ConvictionKARNATAKA HIGH COURT | “Trial Court failed to appreciate evidence”: Newspaper editor’s acquittal for defaming police officer set aside; 6 months imprisonment ordered
In an appeal filed by the complainant-appellant, a police officer, under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III acquitting the respondent, editor of Hello Mysore News Paper, for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of S Rachaiah, J., held that it is defamatory when an officer is accused of accepting illicit activities in the area where he is assigned, such as allowing prostitution, running a club to play cards, selling adulterated kerosene, playing single-number lottery, etc., and there are no public complaints to substantiate any of these accusations. The Court held that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and set aside the impugned order. Further, the Court convicted the respondent of 6 months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000. [S. N. Suresh Babu v. T. Gururaj, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1094 of 2013 (A), decided on 3-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Conviction in sexual assault on 5-year-old girl based on circumstantial evidence upheld
In an appeal against a judgment wherein the accused was convicted for sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl, a Single Judge Bench of Shyam C. Chandak, J., while dismissing the appeal, held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence, the natural conduct of the witnesses, and corroborative testimonies were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. [Kalim Attarli Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4463, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Quashment of Proceedings
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Relief denied to accused in Bareilly Violence Case
In a writ petition filed by a man accused of being involved in the Bareilly Violence Case, the Division Bench of Ajay Bhanot and Garima Prashad, JJ., dismissed the petition, thereby rejecting the plea for quashing the FIR. [Adnan v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. — 23305 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Prior consensual relationship does not amount to rape if accused marries another lady in search of ‘greener pasture’
In a case revolving around the question whether an eight-year long consensual relationship, allegedly induced by a promise of marriage, could be classified as rape, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., observed that the facts did not satisfy the essential requirements for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and therefore, the proceedings against the accused were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. [Pradeep v. State of Kerala, CRL. MC No. 5348 of 2019, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Warrants
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Can arrest warrants be converted into bailable warrants in economic/heinous offences? Larger Bench to decide
In a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) wherein his application under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants in offence involving fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’), was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that ordinarily the difficulty before this Court in deciding the matter is that there are two conflicting views on the same issue by the different Division Benches of this Court of equal strength. Accordingly, the Court stated that it had no other option but to refer the matter to the Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy was put to rest in accordance with law. [Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. UOI, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1947 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Commutation of Sentence
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Offence was not pre-meditated’; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment of man who raped and killed his 5-month-old cousin
In a capital case filed for confirmation of death sentence to a man who raped his 5-month-old cousin, the Single Judge Bench of Rajnish Kumar* and Rajiv Singh, JJ., upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment till the natural life of convict without remission, holding that the convict had no criminal history and there was no evidence that offence was pre-meditated. [State of U.P. v. Premchandra, Capital Cases No. 4 of 2021, decided on 18-11-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATIONAL LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT |18-year-old girl’s Civil Services aspirations recognised; IAS Officer as Mentor appointed
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner—father seeking the production of his daughter (corpus), who had left home, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva,* CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., recognised the her right to study and pursue civil services ambition, and facilitated a supportive environment by involving a senior IAS officer as her mentor. [Ranjeet Kumar v. State of M.P., WP No. 13779 of 2025, Decided on 12-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Amendment giving institutional preference in PG courses in private medical colleges to MBBS graduates from MP quashed
In a writ petition filed by MBBS students seeking quashing of the amendment in Schedule I of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”) whereby 100 % institutional preference was granted to MBBS graduates from medical colleges in the State for admission in postgraduate (“PG”) seats in private medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh(“MP”), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva*, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., allowed the petition, holding that since the amendment was unconstitutional since it exceeded the 50% reservation cap. [Sawan Bohra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No.38169 of 2025, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Academic activities cannot be compromised over political aspirations; expediting Punjab University Senate elections directed
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction for Punjab University-respondent to strictly adhere to the Senate election schedule, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ.* and Sanjiv Berry, J., held that academic activities could not be compromised at the altar of electoral or political aspirations. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and directed Punjab University Senate elections to be conducted expeditiously. [Harpreet Singh Dua v. Panjab University, CM No. 16626 of 2025, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Education cannot be reduced to profit-making: deemed university barred from imposing break fee, Orders refund with interest
While adjudicating a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioners challenged the imposition of a “break fee” by Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (‘CARE University’), a deemed-to-be university, the Single Judge Bench of G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., held that the demand was arbitrary, unlawful, and in violation of the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) Regulations and the Medical Council of India Regulations. The Court observed that reliance on the university’s handbook and circulars to justify the levy could not override statutory provisions, and further noted that the prospectus contained no reference to any such fee. Consequently, compelling students to attend extra classes and charging them for the same was found to be arbitrary and contrary to the governing regulatory framework. [R. K. Sarathkumaran v. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, W.P. No. 39756 of 2024, 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Rehab centre residents cannot be denied voting rights unless declared of unsound mind by competent Court
In a case raising a question whether the votes of people residing in a rehabilitation centre for persons with mental challenges should be classified as challenged votes and be recorded on a separate electronic voting machine, a Single Judge Bench of P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J., dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that the alleged voters were not impleaded as parties and further that without any documentary evidence or declaration by a competent court, such voters could not be presumed to be of unsound mind. [Jomon Jacob v. State Election Commission, WP(C) No. 42170 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ECI’s order de-listing political parties in the State stayed
In the present case, the political parties (‘petitioners’) registered under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’), are aggrieved by the order No.F.No.56/Delisting/2025/PPS-III issued by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’), whereby they are removed from the list of Registered Political Parties and are marked as “DELISTED RUPPs” in the register of Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (‘RUPP’) maintained by the ECI. A Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, J., after referring to Section 29-A, which relates to the procedure for registration of an association of individuals as a political party, stated that Section 29-A does not contain any provision for cancellation of registration. Further, after noting that the petitioners want to field their candidates in the election to the local bodies of the State, the Court put an interim stay on the operation of Order No.F.No.56/Delisting/2025/PPS-III to the extent the petitioners are taken off from the list of Registered Political Parties and marked as “DELISTED RUPPs”. [Kerala Congress (Skariah Thomas) v. Election Commission of India, WP(C) No. 42726 of 2025, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Hunting offences have serious implications for wildlife preservation & ecological balance”; bail denied to man accused of hunting spotted deer
In a third bail application filed by the accused regarding the alleged hunting of a spotted deer, the Single Judge Bench of Milind Ramesh Phadke, J., rejected the application, holding that no ground for grant of bail was made out since the earlier bail applications had already been dismissed on merits, and no substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated. [Devisingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8292, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘State destroying entire vegetation’; cutting, pruning, or shifting of any tree in Bhopal barred in Illegal Tree Felling Case
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported illegal chopping of 488 trees near Bhopal, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., directed that no tree in Bhopal shall be cut, pruned, or transplanted in any manner except with the leave of the Court. [In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 42565 of 2025, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Man’s plea seeking grandchild maintenance from former daughter-in-law rejected; Father’s duty as natural guardian affirmed
While hearing a petition filed under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), wherein the paternal grandfather sought maintenance from the mother for the minor grandson, a Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., held that since the natural guardian, the father was alive, financially capable, and bound by the divorce decree to maintain the child, the grandfather lacked locus standi to pursue the claim. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that former in-laws cannot intrude into the privacy of a remarried spouse by instituting repeated litigations under the pretext of child welfare when the legal guardian is alive and responsible. [X v. Y, CRL RC(MD)No.1148 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Petitions under Surrogacy Act must be treated with ‘sensitivity, responsibility, and compassion’, not as routine applications
In a petition filed under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘the Act’) seeking judicial approval for parentage and custody of the child to be born through surrogacy, along with approval of the intended procedure, wherein the arrangement was altruistic in nature and supported by the consent and medical fitness of the surrogate mother, a Single Judge Bench of A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J., held that the Judicial Magistrate had erroneously and repeatedly returned the petition without appreciating the sensitivity involved, thereby frustrating the parties and acting contrary to the intent of the beneficial legislation. Thus, the Court held that the intending couple’s request for parentage and custody of the child born through the surrogate mother, along with approval of surrogacy, was permissible in law, and accordingly allowed the petition. [S. Prasanna v. M. Jothika, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9957, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | No roving enquiry required: Muslim-born woman’s divorce plea held maintainable under Hindu Marriage Act
In a petition filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, where the marriage had been solemnized in a Hindu temple according to Hindu rites and customs, a Single Judge Bench of P.B. Balaji, J., held the petition maintainable. The Court emphasised that although the wife was a Muslim by birth, her conduct clearly demonstrated conversion to Hindu faith, and the mere absence of a formal ceremony could not justify dismissal of the application. The Court observed that her participation in the marriage solemnization in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, together with approaching the Family Court under the provisions of the Act, sufficiently established conversion. [K. Krishnapriyan v. Aayisha Siddiqua, CRP. No. 1148 of 2025, 07-11-2025]
Read more HERE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Withholding Govt. Employee’s NOC for passport due to pending disciplinary proceedings violates fundamental right to liberty
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner, a government doctor nearing retirement, sought issuance of a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) to enable processing of his passport application for visiting his daughter in Singapore, a Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., held that refusal of NOC by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Orissa, solely on the ground of unauthorised absence and pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings, amounted to infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that the Passport Act, 1967 (‘Passport Act’) does not impose any absolute bar on travel abroad due to pending disciplinary proceedings and accordingly quashed the rejection orders. [Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3963, decided on 11-11-12025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERT RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | METRO FOOTWEAR restrained from infringing registered trade mark ‘METRO’; To be decided if ‘METRO’ a well-known mark
In an issue to determine whether the defendants, by using the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR, had violated the proprietary rights of the registered owner of the trade mark ‘METRO’, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the interim application, held that the registered mark ‘METRO’ had been continuously used since 1955, with its registration in 1972, and therefore, granted temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff’s. [Metro Brands Ltd. v. Metro Footwear, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4447, decided on 10-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to ITC; manufacture & sale of counterfeit ‘GOLD FLAKE’ cigarettes barred
In a case revolving around an action for infringement of trade mark, copyright, and passing off, concerning the mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’ used for cigarettes, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, held that a prima facie case was made out for grant of ad-interim relief and accordingly, issued temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the counterfeit/fake ‘GOLD FLAKE’ cigarettes. [ITC Ltd. v. Abbas Mohammad Shaikh, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4465, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Known face in content creation’; podcast host Raj Shamani’s personality rights protected
While considering a suit filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking ad-interim injunction restraining trade mark infringement, passing off and misappropriation of personality and performer’s rights of content creator Raj Shamani (Plaintiff 1), the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that Raj Shamani is a known face in the field of content creation in India and has attained sufficient goodwill and reputation. Thus, the Court restrained the defendants from misusing Raj Shamani’s persona, name, image, likeness or voice in any manner for any personal or commercial use. [Raj Shamani v. John Doe, C.S. (COMM) No. 1233 of 2025, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Permanent injunction granted to news anchor Anjana Om Kashyap against Fake YouTube Impersonation
In an application for permanent injunction for violation of intellectual property rights, disclosure against impersonation and misuse of personality rights of Plaintiff 2, Anjana Om Kashyap, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, granted permanent injunction in favour of the news anchor. Since the YouTube Channel had already been disabled by Defendant 1, Google LLC, the Court did not pass any further orders regarding the same. [T.V. Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC, C.S. (COMM) No. 634 of 2025, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MEDIA LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Unauthorised cricket streams on rogue websites restrained; JioStar’s Exclusive Media Rights protected
In an application filed by JioStar under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 4 (‘rogue websites’) from unauthorised streaming of India’s cricket matches, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that such unauthorised streaming would pose a significant threat to JioStar’s revenue streams and would undermine the considerable investment made by JioStar in acquiring the exclusive rights to stream such matches. Thus, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of JioStar and restrained the rogue websites from streaming, broadcasting or making the matches publicly available in any manner. The Court further directed the Domain Name Registrars (‘DNRs’) and the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block the rogue websites. [JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Cricfy TV, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8430, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Read why CBFC’s decision for cuts in film “HAAL” was quashed
The present writ petition was filed by the producer and the director (‘petitioners’) of the upcoming film “HAAL”, as they were aggrieved by the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’), as it acted upon the recommendations of its Revising Committee and granted only restricted permission for exhibition of the film under “A” Category, with excisions and modifications. A Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, J., found the film’s theme to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in the Constitution and stated that instead of judging the film as would be done by an ordinary prudent person, CBFC’s focus was on whether the film would ruffle a few oversensitive feathers. The Court opined that it was beyond comprehension as to how the theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships, or portrayal of legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders, as unfounded and intolerant. The Court thus allowed the writ petition and quashed CBFC’s decision, except excision Nos. 5 and 6. [Juby Thomas v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12334, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Repeatedly facing difficulty with such cases”; Rs 5,000 Cost imposed on Party in Person for filing defective Writ Petition, refusing Amicus Curaie services
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, appearing in person, to quash an order, whereby his contractual appointment was extended, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that this case was an example of defective writ petition wherein the petitioner was acting against his own interest by challenging selection of other persons without even impleading them. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the petitioner and stated that often party in person filed defective writ petition since they were unaware of law and they refused to take services of an Amicus Curaie. [Deepak Chowrasia v. State of UP, WRIT A No. 20558 of 2024, decided on 15-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Can a Hospital’s failure to notify police about road accident affect compensation claim?
In a set of two appeals filed separately by husband and wife under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘MV Act’) seeking modification in the judgment passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) by which their claim for compensation was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of, Chillakur Sumalatha, J., held that the failure on the part of hospital authorities to give intimation to police about road accident should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensation in motor accident claims. Accordingly, the Court directed the Tribunal to restore both the cases and decide the matters afresh on merits. [Pandurang v. Durdundi Malagounda Patil, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103215 of 2014 (MV), decided on 29-10-2025]
Read more HERE
PROPERTY LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Establishment of Dharmshala on private land cannot be deemed a charitable purchase
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order whereby the Commissioner, Devasthan Department partly allowed an appeal preferred by Respondent 4 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the petitioner’s application or registration of the trust and declaring it as a public trust for charitable purposes, a Single Judge Bench of Rekha Borana, J., held that mere establishment of a Dharmshala on the land purchased by the forefathers of the petitioners could not be deemed to conclude that the land was allotted for charitable purchases and would be used for the said purpose only forever. [Prem Prakash Bihani v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5797, decided on 6-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PUBLIC SAFETY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Railways must equally protect lives of passengers in general class and higher classes”: relief granted to man who lost both legs in train accident due to overcrowding
In an appeal filed by a man who lost his legs after falling from a moving train due to overcrowding against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (“RCT”), whereby his compensation claim was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Himanshu Joshi, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the grievous injury suffered by the appellant leading to the amputation of both of his legs was a direct consequence of the systemic failure of the Railways in ensuring safe ingress and egress, coupled with absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates. [Raju Dhurvey v. Union of India, Misc. Appeal No. 648 of 2017, decided on 10-11-2025]
Read more HERE
SECURITIES LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | SEBI consent settlement does not absolve accused of criminal liability in IPO fraud
While hearing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioners were seeking quashing of criminal prosecutions initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, (‘CBI’) in relation to alleged irregularities in the in the Initial Public Offerings (‘IPO’) of Yes Bank Ltd. (‘Yes Bank’) and Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (‘IDFC’), the Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale*, JJ., held that the Consent Order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in December 2009 was only in respect of administrative and civil proceeding and did not refer to or deal with the pending criminal proceedings. The Court observed that to quash proceedings merely because payments were made to SEBI would be unwarranted and misplaced sympathy and highlighted that such quashing would amount to an absolute abuse of process of law. [Manoj Gokulchand Seksaria v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 245 of 2020, decided on 15-11-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | “Employment — a means of livelihood and a tool of dignity”: Sanskrit Lecturer ‘prevented’ from service without hearing 2 decades ago reinstated
While hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner, a Lecturer in Sanskrit Vyakarana appointed on 15-04-1998, challenged the Director’s order dated 28-07-2023 favouring Respondent 5’s appointment despite her earlier appeal having been allowed, a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., held that employment is both a means of livelihood and a tool of dignity, and depriving a duly appointed employee of her job without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing is grossly violative of the principles of natural justice. Clarifying further, the Court observed that while respondent may be accommodated elsewhere, her appointment cannot override the petitioner’s right to reinstatement. [Tapaswini Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3996, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Compassionate appointment to stepmother overlooking minor daughter’s welfare questioned; collective responsibility towards girl child called
In a writ petition filed by a minor daughter of a decease government servant against her stepmother who had been granted compassionate appointment without any arrangements for her maintenance, the Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J., directed the respondent authorities to file an affidavit annexing the stepmother’s affidavit wherein she had expressed willingness to provide Rs 5000 as maintenance to the petitioner and mentioning the details of other measures that would be taken for the safety, security, and maintenance of the petitioner. [Varsha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7548, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Constituent Institution employees have no absolute right to General Provident Fund Scheme benefit
In a petition filed by employees of Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute (‘GBPSSI’), constituent institution of University of Allahabad (‘AU’), challenging University Grants Commission’s (UGC) rejection of their entitlement to all benefits granted to a Central University employees including the benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that in absence of any specific provision for General Provident Fund Scheme only on ground that institution became constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners could not be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme. [S. K. Pant Professor v. UOI,, decided on 15-11-2025]
Read more HERE