This week’s roundup traverses all the High Courts to bring to you important cases such as, Prohibition on Hybrid Paddy Seeds, army veteran from 1971 Indo-Pak war, Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana’s PIL on radiation from telecom towers, 2020 Anti-CAA Delhi Riots case, bail to undocumented Bangladeshi migrant, special treatment for VIPs at Mahakaleshwar Mandir, Viswa Hindu Parishad Ganpati Procession, and more.
ADVOCATES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Transfer fee charged by Maharashtra & Goa Bar Council held to be violative of S. 18 Advocates Act
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, filed the present petition challenging the imposition of transfer fees for transferring his enrollment from the Bar Council of UP to that of Maharashtra and Goa, the Division Bench of Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., allowing the petition, held that the fee charged by Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (‘Respondent 1’) was illegal for being in violation of Section 18 of the 1961 Act. The petitioner had contended that the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Advocates Act’) mandated transfer from one state Bar Council to another free of cost. Read more HERE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, LIVESTOCK AND MARKETS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Prohibition on notified varieties of hybrid paddy seeds, set aside; Prohibition on non-notified varieties, upheld
The present petition was filed by the petitioners, who were either the Companies involved in the business of seeds’ production/trading, or the farmers, who were aggrieved by the blanket ban imposed by the State Government on use of the hybrid paddy seeds. A Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari J. upheld the administrative orders dated 4-4-2019 and 10-4-2019, whereby prohibition was imposed only on the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in Punjab, which were non-notified, and the use of kind or variety of hybrid seeds notified by the Government of India was allowed, as they were within the sphere of the Seeds Act, 1966 (‘Seeds Act’) and passed the test of legality. However, the Court set aside the administrative order dated 7-4-2025, whereby the prohibition was imposed on the use of notified kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in Punjab, as it did not pass the test of legality. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
PATNA HIGH COURT | ‘Condonation of delay under Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act governed by Limitation Act or Arbitration and Conciliation Act?’: Matter referred to larger bench
In civil revision applications filed by the respondents challenging the awards passed by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal which were filed after more than ten months from the date of the Award, a Single-Judge Bench of Ramesh Chand Malviya, J., referred the matter to a larger bench of that whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall have an application for condoning delay in a proceeding under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008 (‘BPWCDA Act’), or the condition of delay as laid down under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable, in view of Section 8 of the BPWCDA Act. Read more HERE
ARMED FORCES
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Centre should have granted relief, rather than raising objection for delay’: Plea challenging war injury pension to 1971 Indo-Pak war soldier, dismissed
In the present case, Union of India, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), on the grounds that the said order was perverse. As per the said order, a soldier who was injured in Indo-Pak war, was granted benefit of war injury pension from the date of his discharge and after that, service pension till the date he died. Thereafter, he was granted the benefit of liberalized pension in his wife’s favour, from the next day of his death. The Division Bench of Harsimran Singh Sethi* and Vikas Suri JJ. held that the Centre should have come forward to grant the benefit of war injury pension rather than raising objection for delay. The Court stated even the disability suffered by the soldier was not being treated to be attributable to military service. Such an action on the part of the petitioners could not be appreciated, especially when it related to a soldier who fought for the country and had suffered disability. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE
ARTICLE 21
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | ‘Compelling DNA test without imminent need violates right to privacy and dignity’: Order permitting DNA test in partition suit, quashed
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the which allowed an application for a DNA test in a partition suit, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., while setting aside the lower court’s order held that a DNA test cannot be ordered merely for the asking. The Court emphasized that such an order violates the well-established principle of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and infringes upon a person’s fundamental right to privacy and dignity under the Constitution. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Article 21 includes right to dignity even after death’: Right to dignified burial for all, upheld
In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioners, a group of individuals known as the Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj, against the prohibition from using the kabaristan (graveyard) for the performance of burial rites on account of the distinct identity of being associated with Islam yet retaining certain customary practices under Jasnathi Jat community, a Division Bench of Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Bipin Gupta, JJ., held that the right to dignity under Article 21 extends beyond life and includes a dignified burial or cremation for mortal remains. The court directed the State to file an affidavit outlining a common policy for post-death rituals for all sections of society. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana’s PIL alleging health hazards from telecommunication (mobile) towers, dismissed
While dismissing a PIL seeking removal of illegally erected telecommunication (mobile) towers with multiple antennas at the Petitioners’ premises and other densely populated areas, alleging health hazards from electromagnetic radiation; the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., noted that the issues raised in the PIL were squarely covered by several judgments of various High Courts, including of Bombay High Court, which had repeatedly repelled apprehensions about health hazards due to electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone towers. The Court pointed out that the Petitioners did not place any independent conclusive material to prove the health hazards and, further taking note of the new regulatory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, declined to order removal of the telecommunication towers. Read more HERE
BAIL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Detailed overview of verdict denying bail to Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and other co-accused in 2020 Anti-CAA Delhi Riots case
In batch of criminal appeals filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, by Sahrjeel Imam , Umar Khalid and other individuals alleged to be involved in the large-scale riots in National Capital Territory of Delhi in protest against the enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (‘CAA’) and the National Register of Citizens (‘NRC’), challenging the Trial Court orders dismissing their respective bail applications, the Division Bench of Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur*, JJ, held that even though the accused has a right to speedy trial and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the discretion to deny bail, even when the undertrial has suffered long periods of incarceration, vests with the Constitutional Courts. Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail applications of all accused persons. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | “Bail is the rule and jail the exception”: Bail granted in cheating case citing 9-month custody and lack of incriminating evidence
In an application filed seeking bail during pendency of the trial in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR dated 25-4-2024, for cheating, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga J., stated that taking into consideration the accused’s 9-month custody, slow trial progress, lack of flight risk, and no incriminating evidence against him continued detention served no purpose and would amount to punitive confinement before conviction, contrary to the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Court, thus, taking a wholesome view allowed the bail application. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Once released on bail, prisoner’s custody beyond necessary period is illegal’; Bail granted to an alleged undocumented Bangladeshi migrant
In a petition filed by the accused, who was allegedly an undocumented migrant from Bangladesh, seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act 1946, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara J. granted the bail, stating that once an accused was released on bail, any custody of the prisoner concerned beyond the period necessary to complete the procedures for a formal release from prison, would be illegal, if delayed on flimsy grounds, systemic mediocrity, or bureaucratic red tape. Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | Who is entitled to return of Original Documents, party who produced it or the owner? Order 13 Rule 9 CPC clarified
In a revision petition against an order dated 22-12-2022 (‘impugned order’) wherein an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) for return of original documents was dismissed, the Single Judge Bench of Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J, held that even though the original title deed had been produced before the Court by Respondent 1, petitioner being the rightful owner of the suit property and the title deed in question would be entitled to its return. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Presiding Officer has no basic knowledge of law, needs training”: Civil Court’s order refusing substitution of deceased plaintiff’s heir, set aside
In a miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the Civil Judge wherein the petitioner’s application (‘the application’) under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Hirdesh, J., allowed the petition, holding that since the Civil Court committed an error in dismissing the application and set aside the impugned order while directing the petitioner’s impleadment as the original plaintiff. Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | The Hindu and ETV Bharat Contempt case dropped; Media cautioned against scandalizing judiciary
The Court, on its own motion, took cognizance of a report published by The Hindu and ETV Bharat, which alleged that the roster alteration by the then Acting Chief Justice was intended to disable a particular Bench from hearing National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) and habeas corpus matters. The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar* and Rahul Bharti, JJ., accepted the unconditional apology tendered by The Hindu and ETV Bharat, and closed the contempt proceedings while cautioning them to keep in mind the due diligence when reporting about the Court proceedings and its functioning. Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Non-traceability or unavailability of documents cannot constitute a foundation to lead secondary evidence
In the present writ petition filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) challenging the order of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) which refused its permission to lead secondary evidence, the Single Judge Bench of Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., upheld the order passed by the Tribunal, as it was passed in consonance of the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’). The Court held that the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional case for enabling it to lead secondary evidence as the reason of non-traceability of documents does not constitute a foundation to lead secondary evidence as per the provisions of Section 58 of the BSA, especially when such claim was made without any supporting affidavit. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Court can implead husband’s paramour and seek mobile location of spouse in adultery cases
In an appeal against an order dated 29-4-2025 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court impleaded the alleged paramour of the husband (Respondent 2) as a party in divorce proceedings and allowed disclosure of Call Detail Records (‘CDRs’) of the husband and tower location details of the husband and Respondent 2, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, affirmed the impugned order stating that the impleadment of Respondent 2 was statutorily mandated and that production of CDRs and tower location data was permitted. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Can Section 91 CrPC be invoked to compel an accused to produce incriminating material?
The instant matter dealt with two criminal revisional applications, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) moved by the revisionist seeking quashing of two separate complaint proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalimpong, also challenging the orders dated 13-05-2025 of the Trial Court directing the accused to produce certain rent receipts, as well as the orders dated 23-07-2025 of the Sessions Judge, Kalimpong, which had affirmed the trial court’s directions. Partha Sarathi Sen, J., quashed all proceedings and sets aside the impugned orders in absence of any other cogent materials supporting the case of the complainant. Read more HERE
CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Writ Court can’t decide who is VIP, it’s competent authority’s discretion’; Plea against special treatment given to VIPs at Mahakaleshwar Mandir, rejected
In a writ petition filed against the alleged special treatment given to VIPs at the Mahakaleshwar Mandir (‘the Temple’), the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia* and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., rejected the petition, holding that the Writ Court could not decide as to who was a VIP amongst the persons visiting the Temple on a particular day, as it was the discretion of the competent authority and this was the system applicable in all the religious places in India. Read more HERE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Police directed to facilitate Viswa Hindu Parishad to carry out Vinayaka (Ganpati) procession on requested route
In a writ petition filed by Viswa Hindu Parishad (‘VHP’) to seek direction from the Court, in order to carry out procession and immersion of Lord Ganpati idol, a Single Judge Bench of Harinath.N, J., directed Respondent 3-Deputy Superintendent of Police (the Police) to facilitate VHP in the procession and immersion through the requested route which was being used for the same for past 30 years. The Court also suggested the Police to install cameras on the route to keep an eye on trouble mongers and further directed to take all the necessary steps, deploy all necessary machinery for conducting a peaceful procession. Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Former IPS Officer Amitabh Thakur challenges constitutionality of Section 16 CEC Act 2023
A writ petition was filed by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election (Appointment, Commissioners Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, as unconstitutional. The Division Bench of Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, JJ., took note of the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition for the relief sought to be claimed therein and granted time to Amitabh to amend the same. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Plea of Congress MLA Umang Singhar against Speaker’s inaction on BJP MLA Nirmla Sapre’s defection, rejected
In a writ petition filed Umang Singhar, MLA from Indian National Congress (‘INC’) against the inaction of the Speaker (‘the Speaker’) of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (‘the Assembly’) in adjudicating the disqualification petition filed by him against Nirmla Sapre, MLA from Bharatiya Janta Party (‘BJP’), on the ground of defection, the Single Judge Bench of Pranay Verma, J., rejected the petition, holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. Read more HERE
MANIPUR HIGH COURT | ‘Creates confusion, absurdity and anomaly’; Law allowing Panchayat members to continue in office beyond 5 years, quashed
In the petitions challenging the legality of Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 (‘Amendment Act’) which allowed the members of Panchayat to continue to hold office even after expiry of the 5-year tenure, the Division Bench of Kempaiah Somashekar, CJ and A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., while allowing the petitions, held that the amendment in the Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (MPR Act) was ultra vires and violative of Article 243-E of the Constitution. The Court stated that amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, replacing the word ‘cease’ by ‘continue’ is illogical and is without any fruitful purpose, except for creating two bodies vying for the same power and function. Accordingly, the Court stated that the amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act could be quashed on the ground of absurdity and accordingly, retained the original word “cease” in Section 22(3) of MPR Act, thereby removing the dual set of governing bodies functioning as Gram Panchayat at the same time. Additionally, the Court held that the purpose of an Amendment is to remove difficulties but in the instant case the amendment only created chaos in the governance and functioning of Gram Panchayat. Read more HERE
FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY
KERALA HIGH COURT | Can Rape allegation on false promise of marriage hold when victim is already married?
In a bail application filed by the petitioner (‘accused’) fi under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), in a case where he was accused of offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) for sexually assaulting a woman on a false promise of marriage, a Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., observing that the victim was in a subsisting marriage throughout the alleged period, which negated the claim of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage, granted bail to the accused directing limited custody for interrogation. Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Hindu Marriage valid even if unregistered; Family Court cannot mandate registration certificate for mutual divorce
In a petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a waiver from submitting the marriage registration certificate, a Single Judge Bench of Manish Kumar Nigam, J., held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered. Therefore, the Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition. The Court clarified that the petition for divorce had been filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act, 1955’), seeking divorce by mutual consent. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact of the marriage, as both parties had admitted it. The Court found the insistence of the Family Court for the filing of the marriage registration certificate, based on Sub-rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956 (‘Rules, 1956’), to be unnecessary and unwarranted. The Court emphasised that such a requirement applied only when the marriage had been registered under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was not the case here. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction granted to Tata Sons for marks ‘TATA’ and ‘TATA PAYMENTS’ in trade mark infringement suit
The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their marks ‘TATA’ and ‘TATA PAYMENTS’ on their website, ‘https://www.tatapayment.net/’ (‘impugned website’). A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., held that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the plaintiffs, and thus granted an ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining Defendant 1 and its affiliates from using the marks ‘TATA’ or ‘TATA PAYMENTS’ or any deceptively similar variations across all platforms. The Court directed Defendant 2-Cloudfare Inc to block the impugned website and file an affidavit to share complete details concerning the name, contact details, mode of payment, KYC details and IP address details used by the registrants of the impugned website. Further, Defendant 3-Telegram was ordered to temporarily block infringing accounts. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Takedown of fake sites offering jobs at Zepto, ordered; Granted interim injunction in trade mark dispute
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’)for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 7 and 19 from operating fake domain names, websites and applications using the trade mark ‘Zepto’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ex-parte ad interim injunction and ordered for suspension, deletion and take down of all such websites, applications and social media accounts soliciting payments for fake job opportunities and franchises of Zepto. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to Haveli restaurants in trade mark dispute; directs removal of ‘Punjabi Haveli’ advertisements/listings
In an application filed by the Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd., (‘the plaintiff’) seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendant to prevent them from using the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘HAVELI’, cultural theme, artistic layout and the overall ambience of the plaintiff’s establishments running under the name and brand of HAVELI, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., stated that the defendant had replicated the unique stylistic elements, including the font style and artistic features of the plaintiff’s mark including red and white colour scheme with a sole intention to unlawfully ride upon the of plaintiff’s goodwill. The Court stated that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case the defendant is not restrained from the using impugned trade mark/trade name (‘PUNJABI HAVELI’). The Court thus stated that a prima facie case was established in favour of the plaintiff and passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction restricting the defendant and its proprietors from using, selling, manufacturing, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode in the impugned mark/label/logo. The Court alsodirected the removal of boards, hoarding, display material and social media accounts using the impugned mark. Read more HERE
JUVENILES
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | At what stage can the claim of juvenility be raised by the accused juvenile?
In a revision petition filed by the complainant against the Trial Court’s order allowing the application of juvenility filed by the accused and directing him to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) in kidnapping and rape case, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., while dismissing the petition, reiterated that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial or even at the appellate stage, as also before the Supreme Court in SLP, for the very first time. The Court further noted that the yardsticks for age determination are clearly laid out in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’). Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Is Working “for” an organisation same as working “in” as an employee?
A petition was filed challenging order dated 12-11-2024 whereby she has been terminated from service and is seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing her employer to reinstate her to the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal, with all consequential benefits. Manoj Jain, J., quashed the termination order dated 12-11-2024 and held that since the petitioner continues in service, she shall be deemed to have uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits. Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘Lack of seriousness by Railways’; Suo motu cognizance taken of lack of financial assistance to electrocuted contract worker
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding electrocution of a contract worker while repairing a leakage in an AC coach at the Railway Coaching Depot, Bilaspur, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., stated that at this stage, the primary concern was to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim, who was fighting for his life in the hospital, and the financial burden should not come in the way of getting him the best possible treatment. Accordingly, the Court directed the General Manager (‘GM’) of the South East Central Railway (‘SECR’), Bilaspur, to file an affidavit in this regard. Read more HERE
LAND LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse registration of sale deed
In the present petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the District Sub-Registrar (‘Sub-Registrar’), Bolangir, to accept a deed for sale for registration, which the Sub-Registrar had orally refused to accept. A Single Judge Bench of A. C. Behera, J., while allowing the petition, held that when a document was presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to accept it, and if it is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar might refuse to register it, by assigning the reasons in writing for such non-acceptance and refusal. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘TNPPDL Act doesn’t cover private land’; Charges in Mahatma Gandhi statue damage incident at school, quashed
The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, which had dismissed his application seeking discharge from all charges. The allegations against him pertained to offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (‘TNPPDL Act’), involving trespass into the complainant’s school and damage to the Mahatma Gandhi statue located within the premises. A Single Judge Bench of G. K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., while allowing the petition set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, which had dismissed a petition seeking discharge from criminal charges. The Court emphasised that the subject land was a private property, and the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was not at all attracted for any damage caused to private property. Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | No interim maintenance for “affluent” wife with sufficient dividend income and assets
In a Civil Revision Petition initiated by the petitioner-husband, challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed payment of interim maintenance to his “affluent” respondent-wife and minor son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), a Single Judge Bench of P. B. Balaji, J., while partly allowing the revision, held that the wife did not require any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle. The husband had alleged that the wife was affluent and the Family Court had mechanically passed the order without considering the pleadings in the maintenance application. The High Court emphasised that it could not sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the wife, which was wholly unnecessary considering the substantial income that had accrued to the respondent by way of dividends and her ownership of valuable immovable properties. Read more HERE
NDPS
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Interim bail granted in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, awaiting Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah case
The petitioner filed the present petition seeking regular bail in a case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., ordered the petitioner’s release on interim bail till the Supreme Court pronounces its judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. Read more HERE
PMLA
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | A case of ‘fence eating the crop’: Bail of former Minister under PMLA in Jal Jeevan Mission scam, rejected
In a bail application filed by Mahesh Joshi, a former Minister of the Public Health Engineering Department (‘PHED’) in bribery case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (‘PMLA’) in Jal Jeevan Mission scam, a Single-Judge Bench of Praveer Bhatnagar, J., dismissed the bail application. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the accused’s involvement in the crime and that the case did not meet the criteria for bail under the stringent provisions of the PMLA. The Court noted that the accused, as a minister, held a position of public trust and had a central role in orchestrating the scam. The Court emphasized that the accused’s responsibilities as a high-ranking government official were not comparable to those of the other co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court. Read more HERE
POCSO
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Stigma of rape should not be on the victim but the perpetrator’; FIR refused to be quash in POCSO case; Imposed Rs 10,000 as costs
In a petition seeking quashing of FIR for offence under Sections 137/65(1)/351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) whereby the accused had submitted that quashing the proceedings would be in the interest of the prosecutrix and save her from stigma; a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia J., while dismissing the petition, sternly emphasised that the stigma of rape should lie on the perpetrator and not on the rape victim. Read more HERE
POLICE PROTECTION
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Pursuing case against very powerful individual and facing threats”: Personal security granted to man who challenged Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship
In a writ petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir, who filed a case against Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship, seeking Y-Plus Category Security cover from Central Armed Police Force (‘CAPF’) on an All India Basis, the Division Bench of Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, J., allowed the petition by granting personal security to the petitioner. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PATNA HIGH COURT | Govt. can’t reject arms dealer quota enhancement request merely on general apprehensions such as celebratory firing
In a writ petition filed by an arms and ammunition dealer, after the Home Department denied her request for an enhanced quota despite favourable recommendations, a Single-Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Sinha, J., while quashing the two Memos from the Home Department held that the rejection was arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on vague, irrelevant grounds like celebratory firing, thereby violating the petitioner’s rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the respondents to enhance the quota as per the recommendations of the district-level authorities within two weeks. Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Once appeal is remanded, Authority becomes functus officio, lacks jurisdiction to rehear it
In the present writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Authority) wherein the petitioner’s appeal, related to the delimitation constituencies of Zila Parishad of Shimla District, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner and he himself had taken up the matter for decision. A Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the Divisional Commissioner’s order holding that he did not have the power to suo motu revive an already decided matter and directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the same. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘State cannot unjustly enrich itself at the cost of citizens’: Revenue Authority directed to refund stamp duty on failed transaction
In a writ petition filed for the refund of the stamp duty paid by the petitioner , as the transaction got shelved, the Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the writ directing the Revenue Authority refund the Stamp Duty amount of Rs.17,50,000 and Rs.42,50,000 to the petitioner along with the interest of 4% within two weeks. The Court held that State could not unjustly enrich itself at the cost of its citizens. Failure of the transaction once shown and proven in this case entitled the petitioner to refund of stamp duty paid once the transfer failed as per the provisions of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (‘Act’). Read more HERE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, VIGILANCE AND PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
KERALA HIGH COURT | Govt. Order for further investigation in disproportionate assets case against retired DGP Tomin J. Thachankary, quashed; Directed trial to be completed within 6 months
The petitioner, known for his anti-corruption activism, filed the present writ appeal challenging the State Government’s order whereby it accorded sanction for a further investigation against Tomin J Thachankary (‘Thachankary’), in a complaint against him for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of his income. He alleged that this order would help Thachankary extend the investigation so that his career progression was not obstructed. The Division Bench of Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar* and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., allowing the petition, set aside the State Government’s order. Read more HERE
RESERVATION
BOMBAY COURT | ‘City should not be brought to a standstill’: Maratha reservation protestors directed to vacate streets
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Amy Foundation to stop the organisation of protests at Azad Maidan with respect to the Maratha reservation, the petitioner moved an urgent hearing application before the Court. The plea was made with the objective of restoring normalcy in the city, citing concerns over public inconvenience, disruption of daily life, and potential law and order issues arising from the ongoing demonstrations. The Division Bench of Shree Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ., directed the protesters to vacate the streets and all occupied spaces by forenoon of 2-9-2025. The Court held that protesters had violated the conditions of the permission granted to them by the State Government and they don’t have any valid permission to continue the protests. The Court opined that the city could not be brought to a standstill and normalcy should be restored especially during the Ganpati Festival. Furthermore, the State Government was directed to initiate steps, in accordance with law, against anyone who violates the Court’s order. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Jethani not part of same family unless residence and kitchen are shared’; Order cancelling Anganbari Worker’s appointment, quashed
In a petition filed seeking the quashing of the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly, which had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as an Anganbari Worker, the Single Judge Bench of Ajit Kumar, J. said that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioner and her sister-in-law (Jethani) were part of the same household or shared a common kitchen. Therefore, it could not be held that both women belonged to the same family within the meaning of the Government Order dated 21-05-2023, which prohibits the appointment of two women from the same family at the same Anganbari centre. The Court further held that the impugned order was vitiated not only on merits but also for being in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it had been passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Liberalized Family Pension cannot be granted in cases of private fighting amongst employees after being drunk
While considering this petition wherein, wife (petitioner) of a dead soldier, challenged the order of Armed Forces Tribunal (the Tribunal) by which the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension was not granted to her, a Division Bench of Harsimran Singh Sethi* and Vikas Suri JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to a fight in drunken state with a colleague and not during any training exercise or live ammunition demonstration. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No longer in times when discrimination can be made between male and female’; Directed woman’s appointment to vacant IAF post
In a petition seeking direction to the respondents to fill up the 20 unfilled “Air Force (i) Flying” vacancies for which the Examination Notification dated 17-5-2023 (‘Examination Notification’) was notified, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., stated that the petitioner being in possession of a “fit to fly” certificate and having cleared all rounds of examinations, was eligible for appointment. The Court stated that it was not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. Thus, the Court stated that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled and directed that the petitioner be appointed against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Government sanction for teaching posts in private aided colleges following 2005 amendment in University Acts, clarified
The present writ application addressed a reference by the Division Bench of the Court regarding whether Government sanction was required for the approval of appointments in private aided colleges affiliated to the Universities. A Three-Judge Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque*, Shoba Annamma Eapen & S. Manu, JJ., while distinguishing between ‘sanction of posts’ and ‘approval of appointments’, clarified that if the post was not expressly abolished, the question of obtaining prior sanction from the Government did not arise for approval of the writ petitioner’s appointment made in 2015, which the University granted on the basis of the workload assessment of the preceding year. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Freedom fighter’s pension claim upheld; Validated Personal Knowledge Certificate as secondary evidence
In a petition filed by a freedom fighter, challenging the order dated 20-03-2024 passed by the O.S.D. and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, rejecting his eligibility for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, 1980 (‘SSS Pension Scheme’) due to non-availability of original records and no scope to rescind the earlier decision of the Government, a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Kumar Gupta, J., held that the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer was unjustifiable and liable to be set aside, and accordingly allowed the petition. The Court concluded that the certificate issued by veteran freedom fighters was deemed to be secondary and valid evidence, which needed to be considered for granting pension to the petitioner. Read more HERE
WRITS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus not substitute for meticulous determination of custody disputes’: Refrained from imposing costs on mother
In a petition, filed by the petitioner(‘mother’), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to direct the respondent(‘father’) to hand over the custody of their 4-year-old child, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel J., while dismissing the petition held that the writ of Habeas Corpus was not a substitute for meticulous and evidence-based determination of custody dispute and was not to be utilized as a subterfuge to circumvent the proper statutory forums and its exercise must be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Further, considering that the mother was young with no antecedents with respect to Court proceedings, the Court refrained from imposing costs. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Air India no longer subject to writ jurisdiction post privatisation due to absence of public duty
All three writ petitions were filed by employees of Air India Ltd., seeking reliefs related to dismissal, promotion orders, and pension scheme benefits. Though the facts were distinct, the common employer and issue of maintainability led to the petitions being heard together. During pendency, Air India Ltd.’s status changed due to privatisation, raising questions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha A. Deshpande*, JJ., held that all the three writ petitions, although maintainable on the dates on which they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable, due to privatisation of Air India Ltd. The Court emphasised that due to the change in the status of Air India Ltd., after its privatisation it had become a private entity and was not performing any public functions, therefore, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and no writ could be issued against it. Read more HERE