This week’s roundup traverses various High Courts to cover important cases such as, astrologer Umang Taneja’s defamation case, unregulated sale of knives, domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Admissions, dilapidated Police quarters in Raipur, insulting national flag, and more.
ADVOCATES
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Rule 49 of BCI Rules interpreted; Held Advocate entitled to Absolute Licence if application filed before joining Govt. service
In a writ petition challenging the order passed by Respondent 1 which cancelled the petitioner’s provisional licence to practice law and denied the grant of an Absolute Licence on the ground that he had joined as a Prosecuting Officer, the Division Bench of Javed Iqbal Wani and Moksha Khajuria Kazmi*, JJ., quashed the impugned order. The Court directed that the petitioner should be deemed to have been enrolled as an advocate from the date of his initial enrolment until the date of his appointment to the said service. [John Mohammad Wani v. Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir, WP (C) No. 959 of 2025, decided on 01-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | “Everyone has failed to discharge their responsibility”; Delays in Bail Process acknowledged as two women held for 43 days in bailable offence
In a bail application filed by two women kept in detention for 43 days in bailable offence after their bail applications were rejected by Judicial magistrate and Additional district and sessions judge, a Single-Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., while granting bail expressed anguish and pain, observing that the judicial officers failed to exercise their discretion properly, thereby leading to the accused being kept in custody for 43 days. The Court also observed that the application filed by the accused could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency of bail applications before it, thereby leading to further delay. [Meetu Pareek v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4174, decided on 27-08-2025]
Read more HERE
HARYANA HIGH COURT | Bail cannot be cancelled merely for seeking exemption on few hearing dates, cannot be inferred as willful absenteeism or hampering of trial
In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for quashing the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda whereby bail of the accused was cancelled, bail bonds had been forfeited and non bailable warrants had been issued in case arising out of FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on account of his absence. A Single Judge Bench of Yashvir Singh Rathor J., while quashing the order, held that merely because the accused sought exemption on three out of six dates of hearing, it could not be inferred that he had willfully absented himself or was hampering the trial and bail should not be denied over it. [Dipesh Jain v. State of Punjab, CRMM No. 49295 of 2025, decided on 5-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Kin relative bail condition waived, termed it ‘onerous’ and contrary to Article 21
In the present application, the petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge while granting him bail, wherein one of the sureties was required to be a kin relative of the accused. Despite being granted bail, the petitioner remained in custody since 29-04-2025 due to his inability to furnish such a surety. A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., while allowing the application observed that the condition was not only onerous but also operated as an impediment to the petitioner’s release. The Court emphasised that the right to personal liberty was a constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution, and detention must strictly follow the procedure established by law. [Harsha C v. State of Orissa, CRLMA No.107 of 2025, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail granted to accused in 2012 Pune serial blasts case, citing 12.5 years of pre-trial custody and remote chance of trial completion
The instant appeal was filed against the order passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) denying bail to the accused (appellant) in Pune Serial blasts case. The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that the accused had already undergone pre-trial incarceration of more than 12.5 years and the possibility of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote. Additionally, the accused had no criminal antecedents and he was not charged under Sections 307, 120-B as well as Section 302 the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Thus, the Court quashed and set-aside the order of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and granted conditional bail to the appellant. [Farooq Shaukat Bagwan v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Apl. No..300 of 2024, decided on: 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Posts indicate glorification of anti-national ideology”: Bail denied to man accused of insulting national flag by making a dog pee on it
In a bail application filed by a man who was arrested for allegedly making social media posts against India and in support of Pakistan, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., rejected the application, stating that the said posts were provocative, objectionable, and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace and order. [Vasik Tyagi v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27331 of 2025, decided on 08-09-2025]
Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Taking down content from digital platforms not a ground of civil contempt’: Plea alleging willful disobedience of Reet Mohinder Singh Case, dismissed
In the present case, a contempt petition was filed by a young advocate (‘petitioner’) alleging willful disobedience of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Reet Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7001 (‘Reet Mohinder Singh Case’). A Single Judge Bench of Sudeepti Sharma, J., held that the petitioner seeking to take down content from digital platforms, was beyond four corners of Reet Mohinder Singh Case (supra) as it addressed the menace of noise pollution and did not touch the ambit of regulating the hosting or transmission of online content. Thus, it was not a ground of civil contempt. The Court dismissed the petition and cautioned the petitioner to exercise due care in future. [Hardik Ahluwalia v. Gaurav Yadav, COCP No. 4145 of 2024 (O&M), decided on 2-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “No licence for police to arbitrarily enter names in surveillance register”: Police order refusing closure of man’s history sheet, quashed
In a writ petition filed by an accused seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar (‘SP’), whereby his plea for the closure of his history-sheet was rejected, the Division Bench of Siddharth and Santosh Rai*, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that there was no sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable belief that surveillance was required in the case of the petitioner. There was no evidence to support the act of opening of his history sheet. [Mohammad Wajir v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5354, decided on 28-08-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Failed to show due diligence during trial’; Plea to lead additional evidence at appellate stage, dismissed
The present writ petition was filed against the order of the Sessions Court wherein the Court had rejected the petitioner’s application of leading additional evidence. A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., held that since the petitioner was part and parcel of the entire criminal proceedings from the inception but had failed to show due diligence during the course of the trial, therefore, he could not be permitted to fill in the lacunae by leading additional evidence at the appellate stage when there was no irregularity in conduct of the trial. Additionally, it was stated that if in such circumstances the petitioner was permitted to fill in the lacunae, it would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the Court dismissed the instant writ petition. [Dhanraj v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. (Cri) No. 694 of 2025, decided on: 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Investigation against Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone, Hyundai officials in car defect case, stayed
In a series of criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the MD and COO of Hyundai Motor India Ltd along with the Brand Ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) against FIR registered by the complainant for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code 1860, (‘IPC’) alleging that his vehicle suffers from manufacturing and technical faults causing him immense hardship, the Single-Judge Bench of Sudesh Bansal, J., stayed the further investigation against them and also suggested mediation to resolve the dispute. [Unsoo Kim v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5668/2025, 10-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ED not restricted to access information placed on record before Magistrate by the IT Department for investigation
In three petitions filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the petitioners had sought for setting aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition filed against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class whereby the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) to inspect the documents attached with the complaint filed by the Income Tax Department (‘IT Department’) had been allowed. A Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya J., while dismissing the petitions, held that there was no restriction on the ED to access the information or documents placed on record before the Magistrate by the IT Department for the purpose of investigation. The Court permitted the ED to inspect the record of the complaints before the Magistrate and access the information/documents and prohibited its dissemination publicly. [Amarinder Singh v. Income Tax Department, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6903, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Astrologer Umang Taneja restrained from posting videos defaming Astrologer Trishla Chaturvedi
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff (‘Astrologer Trishla Chaturvedi’) had sought permanent and mandatory injunction against Defendant 1 (‘Astrologer Umang Taneja’) to restrain him from posting videos and posts defaming plaintiff, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that videos and posts in question were defamatory in nature and their continued presence would cause irreparable harm and injury to plaintiff’s reputation. Therefore, the Court ordered them to be taken down within 48 hours of service of the order. [Trishla Chaturvedi v. Umang Taneja, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5815, decided on 4-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DIVORCE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “In despair, the wife set fire to herself and later blamed in-laws”: Divorce granted to man whose wife attempted self-immolation
In an appeal filed against the Trial Court’s judgment wherein the appellant- husband’s divorce plea was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the dreadful act of self-immolation was sufficient to hold that the respondent-wife committed mental cruelty against the husband and the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the evident facts and even more so, in replacing them with its own perceived notions. [H v. R, First Appeal No. 133 of 2007, decided on 26-08-2025]
Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Divorce proceedings cannot be initiated in Australia, if marriage has been solemnized in India
In a common judgement adjudging two appeals filed by the appellant (‘wife’) against the Family Court order dated 31-3-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court had rejected the wife’s plaint for declaration of a divorce decree passed by Australian Court as null and void and for restitution of conjugal rights; the Division Bench of A.Y. Kogje and N.S. Sanjay Gowda*, JJ, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondent (‘husband’) could not have initiated divorce proceedings in an Australian Court when the marriage had been solemnized in India even though the parties had acquired foreign domicile. [X v. Y., 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3730, decided on 8-8-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Academically excellent MBA students get second chance as debarment quashed over “impulsive” marks tampering
In a case where an academically excellent student and her two other classmates altered marks on their answer sheets to reflect a higher score, leading to the Institution cancelling her admission for the academic year 2024—25 and barring her from examinations, the Division Bench of M. S. Karnik* and N. R. Borkar, JJ., while disposing of the petition, held that the increased marks would not have affected the petitioners from passing in the present academic year, which weighed with the Court in considering the case differently. Hence, the Court thought it a fit case where past academic record ought to be a factor in considering proportionality of punishment. The petitioner had contended the punishment was excessive, imposed without a show cause notice, and contrary to the “Rules for Dealing with Malpractice/Unfair Means at Examination for Examination” (‘Rules’) and principles of natural justice. [Simran Inderjeet Singh Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 15555 of 2025, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Nominee doesn’t receive benefits in own capacity, rather as trustee with liability”: Relief denied to deceased CRPF Gunner’s family in succession case
In a civil revision application filed under Section 384 (3), of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘ISA’), read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), against the Civil Court’s judgment denying appellant 1, mother of the deceased, a share in the property, the Single Judge Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the petition, holding that no illegality was committed by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court as merely because a person has been made a nominee, he would not receive the benefits in his own personal and individual capacity, rather he would receive it as a trustee with liability to return the amount to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial interest. [Sudha Tomar v. Neha Tomar, Civil Revision No. 142 of 2020, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Emotional bond does not confer superior right to custody over that of biological parents’: 5-year old’s custody to grandmother, denied
In a habeas corpus petition filed to seek the custody of child from her paternal grandmother, by the petitioner-biological father of the child, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad*, JJ., opined that welfare of the child is of paramount importance in the custody dispute therefore, emotional bond with the child does not confer upon her a superior right to custody over that of the biological parent. Thus, the Court directed the police to take the custody of the child from the grandmother and hand him over to the father. The Court also gave directions to smoothen transition for the child while giving visitation rights to the grandmother for three months. [Pravin Nathalal Parghi v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3100, decided on: 4-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Educated woman in relationship, aware of partner’s marital status, cannot be said to be exploited or misled
In an application filed by the accused, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of FIR for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J, opined that the complainant, being an educated woman, aware of her partner’s marital status, could not be said to have been misled or exploited in law. Thus, the Court held that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that consent had not been obtained on false pretext of marriage, and therefore, quashed the FIR in question. [Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M. C. No. 3061 of 2025, decided on 3-9-2025]
Read more HERE
HABEAS CORPUS
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | 72-year-old woman fined ₹2 lakh for frivolous habeas corpus petition
In a writ of habeas corpus, filed by a 72-year-old petitioner seeking the production of her missing son, a Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K.* JJ., dismissed the petition holding it to be frivolous, an abuse of the court’s process and filed with an ulterior motive to harass the jurisdictional police. The Court imposed punitive cost of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner. [Maheshwari M v. State of Karnataka, WPHC No. 81 of 2025, decided on 01-09-2025]
Read more HERE
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | “No illegal detention by father”: Mother’s Habeas Corpus plea for custody of child with 50% disability, declined
In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner (‘mother’) directing the respondents to produce the minor child suffering before the Court and hand over the custody of the child to the mother, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar*, JJ, observed that the child was suffering from 50 per cent disability and the mother did not have the means to look after the child. The Court therefore held that there was no illegal detention by the father and it would be in the best interest of the child to stay with him. [Digamarthi Sheeba Rani v. State of Telangana, W.P. No. 24485 of 2025, decided on 26-8-2025]
Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Alarming picture”: Monitoring of unregulated sale of knives continued as State informs online sale of 211 knives, registration of 677 cases in 2025
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) registered regarding the unregulated sale of sharp knives, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., noted that a total of 1399 cases were registered under the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Arms Act’), in 2024, and 677 cases were registered till June 2025. Noting this, the Court remarked that the data revealed an alarming picture and listed the matter for further monitoring. [In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State Of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 69 of 2025, decided on 25-08-2025]
Read more HERE
IMMORAL TRAFFICKING
KERALA HIGH COURT | Individuals availing services of sex workers in brothels can be prosecuted for inducing prostitution under Immoral Traffic Act
In a case examining the applicability of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) to a person alleged to be a mere customer at a brothel, the Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun held that while certain charges were inapplicable, others could validly proceed based on the facts and intent of the legislation. [Sarath Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6727, decided on 21-07-2025]
Read more HERE
INSURANCE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Conduct far from bona fide’: Award of Insurance Ombudsman directing Tata AIG to pay insurance claim of Rs. 27 Lakhs to widow, upheld
The instant writ petition was filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd. (insurance company) against the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman in the favour of Respondent 2-wife, for the repayment of home loan due after her husband’s (insured person) death. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., opined that the conduct of the insurance company was far from bona fide as the insurance was rejected due to lack of medical reports, even though the letter by the doctor treating the husband specified the cause of death. Thus, the insurance company had attempted to find loopholes with a view to wriggle out of the obligation to disburse claim amount to the wife. The Court held that the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman did not warrant any interference and dismissed the petition directing the insurance company to discharge the insurance amount of Rs. 27 lakhs within 4 weeks. [Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinay Sah, W.P. No. 1244 of 2023, decided on: 3-9-2025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘KARPURE’ not deceptively similar to ‘CAMPURE’; Interim injunction to Mangalam Organics declined in trade mark dispute
In a trade mark infringement and passing off case filed by CAMPURE against KARPURE/ AIR KARPURE, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that no case of infringement or passing off was made out as there was no similarity between the two trade marks which might lead to causing confusion amongst public or likely association of the defendant’s goods as that of the plaintiff. It was opined by the Court that there was no possibility of slurring over the letter “r” of the mark so as to sound phonetically similar to the letter “m”. Additionally, in the absence of claim of passing off against specific products the same cannot be granted as there was significant difference in physical appearance and packaging of products. [Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. N Ranga Rao & Sons (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3017, decided on: 3-9-2025]
Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Permanency secured: Decision given in favour of Sanjay Gandhi National Park forest workers
In the present petition, the petitioners, 22 “Van Majoor” (Forest Labourers) in Group ‘D’ category from Sanjay Gandhi National Park challenged the Industrial Court’s dismissal of their Unfair Labour Practice (‘ULP’) Complaint seeking permanency. The Forest Department had alleged that petitioners were daily wage labourers, not Van Majoors, and were employed as temporary workers. A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., while allowing the petition, held that there was substantial material evidence available on record to prove that the petitioners had worked with the Forest Department for long and could not be denied their legitimate benefit. The Court emphasised that the situation clearly amounted to exploitation of the petitioners, as they had been engaged in performing their daily work alongside permanent employees of the Forest Department. [Rahul Pittu Savalkar v. Conservator of Forest, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3077, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
LAND ACQUISITION
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | No rehabilitation benefits without entry in Panchayat Parivar Register at the time of acquisition
In the present petition, the petitioner sought issuance of an oustee certificate under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme (‘R & R Scheme’), following the acquisition of his land for the Koldam Hydroelectric Project. A Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., while dismissing the petition, held that since the petitioner was not a resident of the affected village at the time of acquisition as indicated by the absence of his entry in Panchayat Parivar Register, his claim raised 16 years later lacked merit and thus was rightly rejected by the competent authority. [Nathu v. National Thermal Power Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4467, decided on 27-08-2025]
Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE AND ALIMONY
PATNA HIGH COURT | Maintenance order of ‘qualified’ wife who concealed facts about alimony from previous marriage, quashed
In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging a final order of maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, a Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., while quashing and setting aside the maintenance order, held that the trial court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance. [Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2793, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘Alimony not intended to penalize husband or wife but to ensure child’s well-being’: Father ordered to pay Rs 40 Lakh alimony for daughters
In an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the wife demanding alimony for her two daughters from her husband, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai JJ., ordered the husband to pay Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 20,00,000 each for two daughters) within four months considering the needs of two daughters and their future survival including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities as well as marriage. Further, the Court disposed of the appeal and opined that the alimony was not intended to penalize the husband or the wife but to ensure the child’s well-being and financial security. [Vandana Kumari v. Greesh Babu Mathur, F.A. No. 230 of 2019, decided on 4-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PANCHAYATS AND ZILA PARISHADS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Service of notice essentially a question of fact’: Collector’s order regarding no confidence motion against Sarpanch, refuses to interfered with
The instant writ was filed against the order of the Collector, wherein, the no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was said to be challenged due to improper service of the notice of the meeting. A Single Judge Bench of Rohit W. Joshi, J., noted that the report of Tehsildar and panchnama gave contradictory versions regarding the service of notice and held that the view taken by the Collector was a possible view. Thus, the order of the Collector did not warrant any interference of the Court as the validity of service of notice was essentially the question of fact. Additionally, the Court dismissed the petition and opined that service of notice was the fundamental requirement under law, but in the instant case the petitioners had failed to prove that the notice was not served. [Pratibha v. Addl. Collector, W.P. No. 2867 of 2025, decided on: 2-9-2025]
Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | No relief to Flipkart associated delivery agent, area manager for delivering knives allegedly used for a murder
In a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered against the accused persons under Sections 125(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) for delivering a knife that was allegedly used for a murder, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. [Dinesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRMP No. 2714 of 2025, decided on 01-09-2025]
Read more HERE
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | Charges against former Education Minister in 17-year-old teachers recruitment case, quashed; Highlighted enormous delay in prosecution
The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking to quash the order passed by the Special Judge (CBI), whereby the discharge application of the two accused persons, i.e., former Education Minister, Meghalaya and the former Director, Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education, Shillong was dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of I.P. Mukerji CJ. criticized the delay in prosecuting a criminal case and opined that it was against the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to lead a peaceful life free of mental anxiety caused by pendency of a criminal proceeding. The Court stated that, the rate at which the present case was proceeding, examination of all witnesses might take up the entirety of the remaining life of the accused. Thus, the Court set aside the order and quashed the charges against the accused persons. [CBI v. M. Ampareen Lyngdoh, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 977, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Summoning order against Journalists in defamation case over publication of former MP Brij Bhushan’s letters to CM, quashed
In a case concerning a summoning order issued against two journalists in a defamation case filed by a lawyer, related to the alleged publication of a letter written by former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Lavania, J. held that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, had failed to consider all relevant aspects of the case, including the applicable legal principles, while passing the impugned order dated 10-04-2023. [Divya Srivastava v. State of UP, Application u/S 482 No. 3075 of 2024, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘Failed to discharge his administrative functions properly’: Demand notice issued by former District Mining Officer, set aside
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order, issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, whereby a notice was issued against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (‘JMMC Rules’) with instruction to deposit the fine along with statutory taxes. The Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai JJ., stated that in the present case, the Assistant Mining Officer, who held the post of District Mining Officer in charge at that time, straight away saddled the petitioner with a liability by raising the demand of Rs 2,31,862 along with the statutory taxes, without considering the petitioner’s furnished explanation. The District Mining Officer, failed to discharge his administrative functions properly. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the demand notice; and remitted the matter to the present District Mining Officer to take a final decision within three weeks. [Rajesh Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No.2949 of 2020, decided on 2-9-2025]
Read more HERE
RESERVATIONS
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | State response sought on alleged 100% domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Admissions
In a writ petition filed by a doctor challenging Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 (‘the P.G. Admission Rules’), as unconstitutional for allegedly providing 100 per cent domicile-based reservation, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., sought Stat’s response within two weeks. [Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 4702 of 2025, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘State Information Commissioner entitled to Chief Secretary-Level post-retirement benefits’; 10-year qualifying service not mandatory under S. 16(5) RTI Act
In an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge, whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to additional pension, additional Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’), Telephone and Security Assistant along with the benefits and allowances under Section 16 (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with effect from 1-1-2020, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ*. and Arun Dev Choudhary J., stated that the respondent being a member of Union Civil Service would be governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 which states that in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule. The Court thus in accordance to provisions under Section 16(5) of RTI Act and the fact that the respondent has been receiving pension after demitting his office as a member of Indian Audit Service, stated that there were no justifiable reasons to deny the respondent, additional post-retiral benefits, payable to a person of the rank of Chief Secretary, only on the ground that he did not have 10 years of qualifying service. [State of Assam v. Pinuel Basumatary, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4050, decided on 21-8-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘Employees being paid salary from grants-in-aid not government servants’; Pension claim by Assam Minorities Development Board employees, dismissed
The present appeal challenged judgment of the Single Judge, whereby petitioner’s claim for pension was rejected, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ*. and Manish Choudhary J., upheld the decision of Single Judge and stated that even though Assam Minorities Development Board (‘Board’) might come within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution for other purposes, but the employees of the Board, who were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid, would not be called government servants and are not qualified for getting pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (‘1969 Rules’). [Ismail Ali v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4255, decided on 21-08-2025]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Suo motu cognizance taken of dilapidated Police quarters in Raipur; Sought Police Housing corporation’s response
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding a news article related to dilapidated Police quarters in Raipur, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., sought an affidavit from the Managing Director, Police Housing Corporation, Civil Line, Raipur (‘Police Housing Corporation MD’), on the matter. [In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 81 of 2025, decided on 08-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Recruitment process of public employment should remain free from laxity’: Appointment based on forged documents, nullified
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an appointed Assistant Lineman, seeking directions for the respondents to allow him to re-join duty after he was terminated, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. held that an appointment secured by employing fraudulent means renders the recruitment void ab initio and dismissed the petition. Further, the Court stated that public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted and it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity. [Kuldeep v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7001, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘Arbitrary and discriminatory’; Pensionary benefits to 2006-2009 retirees, previously denied over financial stringency, upheld
The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 28-4-2016, passed by a Single Judge, whereby it was stated that persons retiring between 1-1-2006 and 31-3-2009 could not have been denied the benefit of the Assam Pay Commission recommendation of higher salary, only on the grounds of financial stringency. The Division Bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ and Arun Dev Choudhury J.*, stated that the classification sought to be made by the petitioners had no nexus with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension, as such revision was due to increase in cost of living. The Court stated that when all the pensioners formed a single class, there could not be any separate classification amongst this homogenous group. Therefore, the actions of the authorities were rightly held by the Single Judge to be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court thus upheld the decision of Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. [State of Assam v. All Assam Retired Officers, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4051, decided on 21-8-2025]
Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Freedom fighters responsible for benefits enjoyed by bureaucrats’; Directed payment of Swatantrata Sainik Pension to widow
The present set of appeals were preferred against an order passed by a Single Judge wherein he had directed the respondents to pay pension to the widow of a freedom fighter under the Swatantrata Sainik Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘1980 Scheme’) which the respondents had rejected on the ground of lack of evidence to show that the freedom fighter had suffered externment. The Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ*., and Ranjan Sharma, J., observing that the pension schemes for freedom fighters were beneficial legislations, directed the arrears to be paid to the widow. [Union of India v. Mahanti Devi, LPA No.102 of 2017, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Collateral relatives in matrimonial disputes cannot be mechanically disqualified from service; CISF’s withdrawal of appointment, quashed
In a petition was filed by the petitioner assailing the communication issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby the offer of appointment issued to him for the post of Constable/DCPO was withdrawn on the ground that he was declared “unsuitable for employment in CISF”, in view of a pending criminal case, Om Prakash Shukla, J., held that in matrimonial disputes wherein the petitioner is not the main accused and is a collateral accused, the mere inclusion of his name in the FIR should not be a bar for seeking public employment, without any explained overt act attributable to him. [Durvin Kumar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12743/2024, decided on 18-08-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Can the Post Office forfeit interest on excess PPF contributions made in a minor’s account by a guardian?
The present intra-Court appeal was filed challenging the Single Judge’s order wherein the appellants were directed to credit the interest that had accrued on the Public Provident Fund Account (‘PPF Account’) of two minor children, for the period till they attained majority, to the respondents’ accounts. The Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., while quashing the order of the Single Judge, observed that the post office could appropriate the interest that had accrued on the PPF contribution made by the mother in their children’s account in excess of the limits as prescribed under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (‘1968 Scheme’). [Union of India v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq, WA No. 1636 of 2025, decided on 14-08-2025]
Read more HERE
STAMP ACT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Refund of stamp duty ordered despite application being filed beyond 5 years limitation period
In a writ petition seeking the quashment of an order passed by Inspector General of Registration & Superintendent of Stamps (Respondent 1). rejecting petitioner’s application under Section 52-A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, for the refund of the stamp duty paid by the petitioner on a registered Agreement for Sale, on the ground that the cancellation occurred beyond the five-year statutory limit, a Single Judge Bench of N.J. Jamadar, J., while allowing the petition, observed that the delay was caused because the petitioner was bound to approach the authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’), for the cancellation of the Agreement for Sale and the refund of the consideration. The Court quashed the order passed by Respondent 1 and directed the refund of the stamp duty along with six per cent per annum interest. [Katmandu Apparel (P) Ltd. v. Inspector General of Registration & Superintendent of Stamps, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3124, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE