This week’s roundup traverses various High Courts to cover important legal developments such as, issuance of multiple birth certificates, production of call details in criminal trial, food quality in jails, stipend for PG medical students, diabetic State-Level Badminton player’s admission to B.P.Ed. Course, 4-year-old hung from tree by teachers, Ilaiyaraaja’s Personality Rights, Asian Paints Trademark, MMCB Scam Case, protection to live-in couple, and more.
ADMINSTRATIVE LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “It’s a mess, dishonesty at all levels”: State reprimanded over issuance of multiple birth certificates
In a writ petition, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ., expressed concern regarding the issuance of multiple birth certificates and directed the Department of Medical and Health to file an affidavit in this regard. [Shivanki v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7768, decided on 18-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Naming of public departments falls solely within Government domain: Petition to rechristen Tamil Development Department, dismissed
While deciding a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner sought rechristening of “Tamil Valarchi Thurai” as “Tamil Membattu Thurai” and quashing of the impugned order dated 14122022 on the ground that the word “valarchi,” meaning growth or enrichment, could not be equated with “development,” the Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ., and G. Arul Murugan, J., dismissed the petition and held that the naming and renaming of government departments is purely within the domain of the Government and cannot be undertaken by the High Court. The Court further noted that the issue was not of such gravitas that its non-consideration would impair society at large. [Muthu Subramaniam v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11083, decide on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral award granting Rs 5.37 crore to TCS over cancelled recruitment examination, upheld
In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), wherein the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (‘UPLA’) Secretariat assailed the arbitral award dated 24-11-2023, which declared termination of the agreement between UPLA Secretariat and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (‘TCS’), as illegal and directed payment of Rs 5.37 crore with interest and costs to TCS. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., after noting that the tribunal had found that the examinations were successfully conducted and services were substantially complete, upheld the award in favour of TCS, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable. On the plea of frustration of contract, the Court emphasised that Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 (‘Contract Act’) applies only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, and not after obligations are fulfilled. [State of U.P. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 142 of 2024, decided on 25-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
Detention
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Advisory Board approval not required for extending detention period in light of SC’s Pesala Nookaraju (2023) ruling
While adjudicating a writ petition challenging successive preventive detention orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending detention up to the maximum period of twelve months. The Court opined that in light of Pesala Nookaraju v. State of A.P., (2023) 14 SCC 641, no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention. The Court noted that the petitioner’s contention regarding illegal extension on the same facts and absence of Advisory Board approval was unsustainable in law and accordingly dismissed the petition. [Upendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3615, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Evidence
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Production of Call Details in Criminal Trial prevails over Police Privacy Rights; Accused to prove necessity
In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby his application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking call data records (‘CDRs’) and mobile location data was dismissed in FIR under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Yashvir Singh Rathor, J., held that the denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which stood admissible under Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’) in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order. [Mukesh Dutt v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14470, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Hate Speech
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Reliefs sought amount to micromanagement of investigation”: Inside order rejecting petition against politician Amit Baghel for hate speech
In a writ petition filed against politician Amit Baghel, belonging to Johar Chhattisgarh Party, for his hate speech against, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru*, J., rejected the petition, holding that the reliefs sought were neither maintainable nor substantiated by any exceptional circumstance justifying deviation from established legal principles governing criminal investigation. [Amit Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPCR No. 585 of 2025, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
NDPS
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Recovery of commercial quantity of charas bars bail unless Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions are met
In a case revolving around the issue as to whether bail could be granted in a case involving recovery of a commercial quantity of charas under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) based on prolonged incarceration and absence of conscious possession, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the twin conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied, and that delay in trial alone could not justify bail in such cases. [Nittu v. State of H.P., Cr. MP (M) No. 2286 of 2025, decided on 24-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Prisons and Prisoners
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | DLSA directed to inspect jails for food quality provided to inmates
While deciding a criminal appeal challenging the management of food supply and canteen facilities within the jail premises, wherein it was contended that inmates were not being provided food in accordance with the jail manual and that the permission granted to a committee of inmates to run the canteen required judicial scrutiny, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., upheld the permission to operate the canteen and held that strict responsibility must be placed on the Jailor. The Court further directed that the District Legal Services Authorities (‘DLSA’) conduct frequent inspections to ensure compliance with the jail manual and to assess the quality of prison food to determine whether it is being supplied to the inmates as provided therein. [Akash Kumar Roy v. NIA, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 961 of 2024, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRUELTY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Allegations of spending habits, household contribution, or mobile usage, without proof of severe mental harassment, not cruelty”
In an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court’s judgment whereby his application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and B. P. Sharma*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that there was no error or perversity warranting interference and the Family Court correctly held that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. [C v. D, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8458, decided on 06-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Deriving pleasure from difficulties & tension of other is cruelty”: Divorce granted to woman after husband’s refusal despite irretrievably broken marriage
In an appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s judgment whereby her divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat* and B.P. Sharma, JJ., allowed the appeal as well as the divorce petition, holding that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty by not giving her an option to live her life freely according to her choice and unnecessarily opposing the divorce when she was already living with another man. However, their marriage was invalid. [D v. E, First Appeal No. 789 of 2022, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DEBT, MONETARY, AND FINANCIAL LAWS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Former stockbroker Ketan Parekh’s liberty to travel abroad, protected, Replaced Rs 27 crore bail condition with Rs 5 lakh in each case
In a case concerning the imposition of onerous bail conditions linked to permission for foreign travel, a Single Judge Bench of N. J. Jamadar, J., allowed the petitions filed by an accused in prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’), challenging the order of the Special Judge. The Court held that the requirement to deposit Rs 27.06 crore as a prerequisite for travel abroad failed the tests of reasonability, proportionality and nexus with the object of ensuring presence at trial. The Court accordingly quashed the impugned condition and substituted it with a lighter requirement of Rs 5 lakh in each case as security, while leaving all other conditions imposed by the Special Judge unaltered. [Ketan V. Parekh v. SEBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4605, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Issuing fresh show-cause notices against quashed inspection report illegal: Interim relief granted to Foundever against ESI Corpn
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein Foundever CRM India (P) Ltd. (‘Foundever’) challenged fresh show cause notices issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. (‘ESI Corpn.’), the Division Bench of R. I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ., held that reliance on an inspection report already quashed by the Court’s earlier judgment amounted to willful disobedience of judicial directions and was therefore illegal and invalid. Thus, the Court restrained ESI Corpn. from proceeding further on the basis of the impugned notices, granted ad-interim relief to Foundever, and directed both the parties to complete pleadings before the next hearing on 07-01-2026. [Foundever CRM India (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4613, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ICAI’s proposal of 5 years debarment of CA in MMCB Scam case quashed for non-application of mind
In a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (‘Act’) concerning allegations of professional misconduct against Chartered Accountant S.N. Valera, a Division Bench of *A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ., set aside the recommendation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to remove the respondent’s name from the Register of Members for five years. The Court held that the Council had failed to record independent findings as mandated by the Act and the Chartered Accountant Regulations, 1988 (‘Regulations’), and had instead reproduced the Disciplinary Committee’s report verbatim without adequate consideration of the respondent’s representation. [Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. S.N. Valera, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 4888, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELAYS AND LATCHES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | 73-year-old being harassed for 20 years: Trial Court called up for “lethargy in duty”
In an application filed by the applicant-accused, 73-year-old person, to quash the chargesheet in case under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act 1951 (‘Representation Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh. J., held that the Trial Court was lethargic in functioning its duty as the accused was not causing any delay, rather it was the prosecution, who repeatedly sought adjournments, and the Trial Court was very liberal in granting the same. The Court stated that the accused had been harassed for the last 20 years and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one month. [Shrish Kumar Malviya v. State of UP, Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 45869 of 2025, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | AIIMS not obligated to pay stipend to PG students admitted under ‘foreign national’ category
While considering a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 16-7-2013 (‘impugned order’), whereby the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) (‘appellant’) was directed to pay emoluments to foreign-national postgraduate students at par with the Indian Junior Residents, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal*, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, held that the seats under the ‘Foreign National’ category had been deliberately created as ‘no financial liability’ seats, outside the general merit pool, managed through diplomatic channels. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgement. [All India Institute of Medical Science v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8561, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Type-1 Diabetes cannot hinder Right to Education”: Diabetic State-Level Badminton player’s admission to B.P.Ed. Course, directed
In a writ petition filed by a State-Level Badminton Player against the rejection of his admission in the B.P.Ed. Course (“the Course”) due to his Type-1 diabetes, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Pushpendra Yadav, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the petitioner’s admission, holding that the respondents’ refusal to provide minimal dietary flexibility or safe insulin storage, both of which petitioner volunteered to manage at his own cost, constituted denial of reasonable accommodation and hence, discrimination per se In a writ petition filed by a State-Level Badminton Player against the rejection of his admission in the B.P.Ed. Course (“the Course”) due to his Type-1 diabetes, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Pushpendra Yadav, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the petitioner’s admission, holding that the respondents’ refusal to provide minimal dietary flexibility or safe insulin storage, both of which petitioner volunteered to manage at his own cost, constituted denial of reasonable accommodation and hence, discrimination per se. [Pragyansh Tak v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 32896 of 2025, decided on 07-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Cognizance taken of 4-year-old hung from tree by teachers as corporal punishment, response sought from School Education Department
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) regarding the poor condition of government school toilets in Bilaspur, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., took cognizance of a news report wherein a 4-year-old child was tied to a rope and hung from a tree as corporal punishment. Accordingly, the Court directed the Secretary, Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh, to file his personal affidavit regarding the aforesaid issue by the next date of hearing. [Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 17 of 2025, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Photographs show dismal state of affairs regarding transplantation”: Ban on harming trees extended to entire MP, seeks responses from State Authorities
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., sought responses from different authorities regarding transplantation and directed that no tree shall be cut, pruned or transplanted in any manner in Madhya Pradesh except with the prior permission of the Committee constituted by the NGT and the Tree Officer concerned till the next date of hearing. [In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 42565 of 2025, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “DNA test cannot be ordered in routine manner”: Husband’s plea challenging child’s paternity, rejected
In a revision filed by the husband against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’) rejecting the DNA test, a Single Judge Bench of Chawan Prakash, J., held that it is settled principles of law that an order for DNA test could not be given in routine manner and could be directed in specific circumstances where any person proved that there was no chance for cohabitation between the parties during the relevant period. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order. [Ramraj Patel v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. — 3271 of 2021, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Personality Rights
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Daily monetisation of persona amounts to infringement; Interim relief granted for protecting Ilaiyaraaja’s Personality Rights
While hearing an application in a commercial suit, wherein plaintiff Ilaiyaraaja sought protection of his publicity and personality rights against unauthorized exploitation in digital and electronic media, a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement. The Court emphasised that attributes such as name, image, voice, and photographs cannot be commercially exploited or falsely endorsed without prior authorisation and observed that the plaintiff’s persona was being misused and monetised on a daily basis. Thus, the Court allowed the plea for interim relief, granted an injunction restraining such unauthorized use until 19-12-2025. [Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe, OA No. 1091 of 2025, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
Trade Mark
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to Asian Paints in trade mark dispute, Found rival marks confusingly similar
While adjudicating an interim application concerning infringement of trade mark and copyright in relation to wall putty and enamel products, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the impugned marks and pirated artworks were deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade marks and artistic works of the plaintiff—Asian Paints Ltd. The Court noted that the earlier findings of deceptive similarity and infringement remained unchallenged, and accordingly confirmed the ad-interim relief as interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling and/or using the impugned marks and artworks. [Asian Paints Ltd. v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4601, decided on 18-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘HERMES’ and 3-D shape of its ‘Birkin’ bag declared as well-known trade marks
While hearing a suit filed for trade mark infringement, passing-off, tarnishing and misappropriation of the plaintiff, Hermes’ Birkin bag, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, declared the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag as well as the trade mark ‘HERMES’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 11(6) read with Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’). [Hermes International v. Macky Lifestyle (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8581, decided on 24-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Freecia Professional restrained from infringing on Visage Beauty’s O 3+ facial kits packaging and mark
In a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the petitioner, Visage Beauty sought an interim injunction restraining Defendant 1, Freecia Professional from infringing on its trade marks D-TAN, SHINE & GLOW and DERMOMELAN, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted the injunction and held that the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ mentioned on Defendant 1’s products had been substantially copied from the plaintiff’s packaging and therefore amounted to trade mark and copyright infringement. [Visage Beauty & Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. Freecia Professional India (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8552, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Well-known trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’, protected; Use of mark ‘GOLD FLAME’ in sale of cigarettes, restricted
While hearing an interlocutory application filed under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for vacation of an order dated 13-3-2024, wherein the Court had granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiff, ITC’s registered trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the copying of trade dress while dealing with the same type of products amounts to passing off. Accordingly the injunction granted under the order dated 13-3-2024 was confirmed and made absolute by the Court. [ITC Ltd. v. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., C.S.(Comm) No. 221 of 2024, decided on 24-11-2025]
Read more HERE
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Protection to live-in couple without dissolution of marriage would amount to protection against bigamy
In a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking directions for Respondent 4, Petitioner 1’s husband, to not interfere in their peaceful life and to provide protection, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh, J., held that if the said protection was granted, it would amount to granting protection against commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’). Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. [Sonam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7539, decided on 07-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Mandatory services & package rate display; No denial of emergency aid: State Clinical Establishments Act, upheld
In a case that challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments Act (Registration and Regulation), 2018 (the ‘Act’), the Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ. , dismissed the writ appeals and held that the Act and its Rules were neither unconstitutional nor arbitrary, but rather a carefully designed social welfare legislation to safeguard patient rights, ensure transparency, and maintain minimum standards of healthcare facilities. [Kerala (P) Hospitals Assn. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13042, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Condonation of 12-year delay refused; Imposed Rs 1 lakh costs for misuse of judicial process due to suppression of facts in writ petition
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioners sought condonation of delay of more than twelve years in filing a revision against the confirmation of auction sale of their mortgaged properties, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., noted that the petitioners had made false statements on oath and suppressed material facts regarding their knowledge of the auction. Since writ jurisdiction is discretionary and based on fairness, the Court dismissed the petition, upheld the refusal of condonation of delay, and imposed costs for misuse of judicial process. [Ramrao Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4462, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Adverse action against doctor who didn’t rise upon MLA’s arrival “highly disturbing” and unjust: Rs 50,000 cost imposed on State
The petition filed by the petitioner, a Casualty Medical Officer working with the Government of Haryana, challenging the withholding of his No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) by his employer, required to obtain admission in a Post-Graduate (‘PG’) course, on account of pending disciplinary proceedings against him, the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra* and Rohit Kapoor, JJ., held that it would be wholly unjust and manifestly arbitrary to allow adverse action against a Doctor merely because he did not rise upon the arrival of an MLA and keeping such proceedings pending for years and denying the petitioner an NOC on such basis, therefore, could not be sustained. Accordingly, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent and directed the issuance of NOC to the petitioner. [Manoj (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14627, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Obtaining passport a constitutional right; Foreign travel necessity proof cannot be demanded to grant NOC for renewal
In a case revolving around the question whether an accused facing trial could be denied a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) for renewal of a passport on the grounds of prematurity or absence of documentary proof of foreign travel necessity, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., set aside the Trial Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that the right to hold a passport is a constitutional right and cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. [Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan v. State (UT of J&K), CRM(M) No.736 of 2025, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Disciplinary action against Superintendents of Police unjustified for Investigating Officer’s failure to file charge sheet/closure report
In a case concerning disciplinary proceedings against Superintendents of Police for alleged lapses in monitoring a 2015 jewel missing investigation, a Division Bench of N. Sathish Kumar* and M. Jothiraman, JJ., allowed the appeal filed by the State authorities, holding that the duty to file reports lay with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and that negligence could not be attributed to the Superintendents of Police merely on account of their supervisory role. The Court accordingly set aside the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police who had held office from 2015, while making it clear that all other directions of the Single Judge were to be scrupulously followed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. [State of T.N. v. Vijayarani, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10030, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Higher post in officiating capacity gives entitlement to higher salary
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order whereby the petitioner’s application, seeking directions for respondent to pay him the salary admissible for the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) along with arrears for the period he had worked upon superannuation of the person posted, was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). The Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., held that the Tribunal did not thoroughly examine the record of proceedings and dismissed the said application on the ground that no provision was shown indicating entitlement of the petitioner to get a salary for Head Master. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period concerned after adjusting the salary he had already received as TGT. [Uma Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7798, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Belated mental disability/depression claim cannot undo accepted voluntary retirement: Reinstatement refused
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acceptance of voluntary retirement, where the employee had tendered resignation citing health reasons and depression, a Division Bench of Kishore C. Sant* and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ., held the petition not maintainable. The Court emphasised that once resignation has been accepted and acted upon in accordance with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 (‘Pension Rules’), there is no provision to reinstate the employee into service. The Court observed that the claim of mental disability raised for the first time after retirement could not undo the resignation, and allowing such relief would amount to directing the authorities to act against the Rules, which is impermissible. [Mahananda Mahadev Jaybhaye-Munde (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4705, decided on 25-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Sympathy cannot substitute law’; Constable’s plea who was wrongly appointed under Freedom Fighter quota for 9 years, dismissed
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside show cause notice, that required him to explain why he should not be terminated from service for submitting a Freedom Fighter Certificate issued in his father’s favour , a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., held that the Freedom Fighter Certificate enclosed by the petitioner during recruitment was issued to his father. As per the terms and conditions, the benefit was available up to the grandson of a Freedom Fighter, and the petitioner being the great grandson, didn’t fall into the said category. Thus, the Court stated that it could not legalize such irregular or illegal acts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that it was not oblivious of the fact that dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to him and his family, but sympathy or compassion could not substitute law. [Chandandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 29141 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE