This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Aishwarya Rai’s Personality Rights, Abhishek Bachchan’s Personality Rights, Lucknow’s Ancient Buddheshwar Mahadev Temple, failure of education system, admitted rate of rent, Interfaith participation, Maharashtra Sadan Scam, PM Modi AI Video, management at Delhi Airport and Aerocity, non-regularization of ad-hoc workers, right to change name, change in hospital’s name, able-bodied husband, maintenance rights, tenancy rights, compulsory retirement, ex-servicemen quota, and more.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Allahabad HC directs Department of Religious Affairs to propose a scheme of administration of Lucknow’s Ancient Buddheshwar Mahadev Temple
In a writ petition filed by the pujari of the Buddheshwar Mahadev Temple (‘the Temple’) seeking opening of the locks of the Sita Rasoi and Kanwar Bhawan of the Temple, the Division Bench of Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, JJ., stated that since the Temple was ancient, the Secretary of the Department of Religious Affairs (‘the Secretary’) may look into the affairs of the Temple and propose a scheme of administration. [Buddheshwar Mahadev (Deity) v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5835, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Allahabad HC seeks Union’s response on claim of failure of education system due to poor network in Indo-Nepal bordering areas
In an application filed seeking provision of proper telecom network in the Indo-Nepal border area of Chakujot, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, the Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., noted that the network was extremely slow and directed the respondent authorities to file a comprehensive affidavit indicating the steps were being taken to improve the telecom network in the Indo-Nepal bordering areas, the research carried out regarding the proper functioning of the network, and the proposed corrective measures for improving connectivity. [Sushant Chandra Jaiswal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5799, decided on 08-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab and Haryana HC flags non-regularization of ad-hoc workers, administrative delays; Lays down parameters for timely implementation of court decisions
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the respondent through which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. ordered the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners within six weeks and laid down following parameters to ensure timely and effective implementation of the decisions of the Courts: Accountability and Responsibility — Each order should clearly specify the officer responsible for its implementation otherwise personal accountability would be recorded in the concerned officer’s service record. Statutory Time Limits — There should be mandatory timelines established for implementing judgments related to service, unless higher Court had put a stay. Monitoring Mechanism — Every department should establish a centralized judgment implementation cell for tracking compliance, and these would submit quarterly reports to the department head. Digital Transparency Tools — The implementation status of court orders should be available on an online portal, providing transparency and allowing employees to monitor the progress of their cases. Further, there should be digitalization of service records to reduce procedural bottlenecks. Pre-Litigation Grievance Redressal — Internal grievance mechanisms should be developed to allow employees to seek redressal before approaching the courts for matters already settled in law. Training and Awareness — Regular capacity-building initiatives should be conducted to sensitize officers about the constitutional importance of implementing Court orders, the rule of law, and the serious consequences of administrative indifference. Performance Appraisals — Compliance with judicial directives should form a part of the measurable performance evaluation criteria in the annual appraisals of administrative officers. Further, the Court stated that the habitual administrative negligence, indifference, and deliberate delay in implementing court-mandated relief, particularly in service matters concerning employees, was a problem in public institutions. [Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7746, decided on 8-9-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rajasthan High Court defines “public temple”; cancels licenses of meat shop within 50 meters radius
In a series of civil writ petitions, filed by the petitioners against cancellation of their meet shop licences located within 50 meters radium of a temple, the Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., upheld the cancellation observing that it violated the Standard of Procedure (‘SoP’) issued by the authorities and the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011. The Court noted that the SoP aims to maintain harmony and respect towards places of worship and educational institutions like schools. The Court further noted that if a temple is situated in an open area and is accessible to the public, it will be construed as a public temple and that the SoP was a valid basis for the cancellation. [Aayush Narania v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4679, decided on 01-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Read why Delhi HC quashed SFIO probe against Moser Baer’s former Director Nita Puri
In a petition filed by the former director of Moser Baer India Ltd. (‘MBIL’), assailing the order dated 5-9-2024 (‘impugned order’), issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’), directing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’) to conduct an investigation into the affairs of MBIL, the Single Bench of Sachin Datta, J, held that the impugned order failed to satisfy the ingredients necessary for exercise of power under Sections 206(4), 210 and 212(1)(c) of the Act and quashed the same. The Court further opined that an order under Section 212(1)(c) of the Act, directing investigation by the SFIO was not a routine administrative measure and cannot be used in a casual or perfunctory manner. It is in the nature of an extremely serious statutory action having grave consequences and repercussions for the subject entities and individuals. Therefore, the order must be issued only after due application of mind, after examining all relevant circumstances. [Nita Puri v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5941, decided on 28-8-2025]
Read more HERE
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Chhattisgarh HC takes suo motu cognizance of non-delivery of medical equipment worth Rs. 15 Crores to CIMS despite Govt approval
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) regarding the deplorable working condition and lack of medical facilities in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur (‘CIMS’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., took note of a news article stating that despite purchase of new machines worth Rs. 15 Crores, no machines were delivered to the CIMS. Noting this, the Court granted time to the State, other respondents, and Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd (‘CGMSCL’) to seek instructions in the matter and file an appropriate reply. [In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 93 of 2023, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mumbai Metro Line-5 update: Bombay HC issues directions for future projects involving mangrove clearance, orders geo-tagged mangrove patches and more
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘MMRDA’) filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit it to proceed with the construction for the Mumbai Metro Line-5 project and keeping in mind its public importance, grant leave as contemplated under the various conditions imposed by the respondent authorities. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., while noting that the petition raised important questions concerning the balance between ecological preservation and infrastructure development, specifically requiring the cutting of mangroves for a public utility project, issued directions to be followed for all future projects involving cutting of mangroves, which included creating a dedicated website, geo-tagged and time-stamped proof of compensatory planting with periodic updates, etc. [MMRDA v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3180, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Change in hospital’s name not a ground to deny medical reimbursement
In a writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the rejection of his medical reimbursement claim by the State authorities due to change of the hospital name, a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., set aside the rejection of reimbursement order holding that the denial of reimbursement merely on account of non-updated nomenclature, when the entity remains the same was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court further observed that the authorities’ failure to update their records cannot prejudice the petitioner. [Shivanandappa Doddagoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18939, decided on 10-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Orissa HC upholds Government’s decision to revoke licenses of teachers acting as Registrars of Muslim Marriages
While considering the present petition filed by teachers of Government and Aided Schools challenging the State authorities’ decision to revoke licenses earlier granted to them for registering Muslim marriages and divorces, and maintaining related official records; a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while dismissing the petition, held that the Government had first-hand experience and information as to the functions teachers performed and Muhammedan Registrars accomplished, and in its accumulated wisdom, was of the opinion that teaching would be materially affected if teachers became Muhammedan Registrars. [Md. Usman Khan v. State of Orissa, WP(C) No. 17429 of 2025, 08-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside compulsory retirement of 58-year-old District Judge; Criticizes Administrative Judge’s adverse remarks on integrity
In a petition filed by a District and Sessions Judge, Haryana (‘petitioner’) challenging the order of his compulsory retirement in public interest passed by the Governor of the State of Haryana on the recommendations of this High Court, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu CJ*. And Sanjiv Berry J. criticized the Administrative Judge’s decision and opined that the order was vitiated by illegality, impropriety and malice. Accordingly, the Court overturned the compulsory retirement and ordered that the petitioner be entitled to all consequential benefits. [Shiva Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, CWP No. 24938 of 2012 (O&M), decided on 15-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court clarifies PMLA procedure; Lays down roadmap for Adjudicating Authorities on retention and seizure
An appeal was filed by Directorate of Enforcement (appellant) under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging the order dated 06-02-2019 wherein the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 21-08-2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), which had allowed original application dated 15-06-2017 filed under Section 17(4) of the PMLA, seeking retention of seized properties of the respondent. A division bench of Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., held the order dated 21-08-2017 as legally unsustainable as the order does not reveal any reason being accorded for the decision to confirm the retention of the property and does not satisfy the statutory mandate and suffers from a mechanical and superficial approach, devoid of the mandatory inquiry envisaged under Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of PMLA. [ED v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 03/2023, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes ‘functus officio’
In a petition filed by Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd. (petitioner) under Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 15 months i.e. from 14-01-2024 to 14-04-2025. Jasmeet Singh, J., held that the present Section 29A petition is belated and an attempt to cure an incurable defect. Thus, allowing the present petition would mean permitting the petitioner to not only enjoy the fruits of being a fence sitter but also putting a premium on its inaction, which is not the ambit and scope of Section 29A of the 1996 Act. [Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd v. Oyo Apartments Investments LLP, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 115/2025, decided on 18-08-2025]
Read more HERE
COURT PROCEEDINGS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Madhya Pradesh HC temporarily stops livestreaming of Court Proceedings amid alleged misuse in making reels, memes
In a writ petition filed against the livestreaming of court proceedings, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., directed the Registry to temporarily stop the livestreaming of all the Benches hearing criminal matters till the next date of hearing. [Arihant Tiwari v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 6578, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
COMPETITION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay High Court dismisses plea against CCI’s order for probe against Asian Paints over abuse of dominance in decorative paints market
A writ petition was filed by Asian Paints Limited-petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) wherein CCI, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had ordered probe into the allegations made by Respondent 2-Birla Paints Division that the petitioner abused its dominance in the decorative paints market. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., held that that no right to pre-investigation hearing at the prima facie stage with adequate safeguards was available at later stages of the proceedings. Additionally, Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) did not create any jurisdictional embargo preventing CCI from entertaining a representation, if it was found distinct/different from the earlier representation. The Court thus, dismissed the petition as it found no infirmity in CCI’s order. [Asian Paints Ltd. v. CCI, W.P. No. 2887 of 2025, decided on: 11-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Occasional absence on court hearing dates not enough to justify dismissal & acquittal for non-prosecution under S. 256 CrPC
In the present application, the appellant sought leave to appeal against an order by which the Magistrate, taking note of the appellant’s absence, had dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), resulting in acquittal of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of M. M. Nerlikar, J., while allowing the appeal, held that opportunity of hearing and right to present the case were statutory incorporation of natural justice by mandating procedural safeguards, and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have taken a harsh and hyper-technical view by dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, which accordingly violated procedural safeguards. [Amit Sunarlal Shahu v. Hare Madhav Electronics, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3143, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Doctrine of Contributory Negligence does not apply to criminal law; may be considered a mitigating factor while punishing offender’
A revision petition was filed by the petitioner-accused, challenging the order which convicted him for the offence under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), imposing the punishment of one year simple imprisonment, as the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused to her due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J., opined that the doctrine of contributory negligence was not applicable to criminal actions and the same could not be taken as a defence in the instant case. The accused was obligated to take precautions, and failure to do the same amounted to negligence. The Court, in addition to the fact that the deceased also acted negligently, acknowledged the conduct of the accused post the offence and noted that he rushed to take the deceased to the hospital and also had no criminal antecedents. The Court opined that the doctrine of contributory negligence could be considered as a mitigating factor while sentencing the offender and thus observed that the punishment imposed by the Court was excessive and accordingly reduced the punishment to 3 months of imprisonment and partly allowed the petition. [Islavath Taru Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3243, decided on: 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Classic case where prosecution failed to establish guilt’: Bombay HC acquits accused in murder case
A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court whereby, the accused was convicted for offence under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and sentenced with life imprisonment based on the testimony of the sister of deceased and other circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., held that the it was a classic case where the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of primary witness i.e. the sister of deceased, and there was no other cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime, except the inadmissible extra-judicial made by him to the police. The Court opined that the Sessions Court was in complete ignorance of principles of criminal justice as the benefit of doubt was not given to the accused when the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Court quashed and set aside the said order and directed for immediate release for the accused. [Vijeyendra v. State of Maharasthra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3174, decided on 10-9-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Rape allegations cannot be disregarded merely because they were made for the first time in S. 164 CrPC statement’
In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused challenging the framing of charges under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on allegation made for the first time in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) statement, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., dismissing the petition held that simply because the allegation of the rape has been alleged for the first time during the course of statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC, it cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge. The Court observed that balance needs to be created between the rights of the accused and the victim. [Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 964/2023, decided on 27-08-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | S. 198-B CrPC bars Magistrate from taking cognizance of rape under S. 376-B IPC without complaint by separated wife
The present petition was filed by the accused-husband under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings against him for allegedly raping his wife while they were separated, thereby committing offences under Section 376-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’). A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., quashed the proceedings initiated against the husband on the ground that the cognizance was based on police report and not the wife’s complaint, contravening the mandate of Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). [X v. State of Kerala, OP (Crl.) No. 284 of 2025, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Test to invoke S. 319 CrPC is whether unrebutted evidence would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned
The present application was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, whereby he was summoned under Section 319(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to face trial. A Single Judge Bench of Chittaranjan Dash, J., while allowing application took note of the informant’s allegation that his son was murdered by his daughter-in-law, who was in a love relationship with the petitioner and held that the depositions implicating the petitioner rested entirely on suspicion and surmises, without even a semblance of evidence showing his participation in the preparation or commission of the offence. [Hrushikesh Panda v. State of Orissa, CRLMC No. 3194 of 2023, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
CYBER LAW
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Karnataka High Court directs robust implementation of Cyber Command Centre to tackle burgeoning menace of cybercrime
In a pending writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of mandamus for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., issued a continuing mandamus, ensuring the implementation of its earlier order regarding the establishment of a Cyber Command Centre (‘CCC’). The Court held that the CCC is not an option, but an imperative born of necessity and directed the State to make the centre robust and insulated from external intrusions, including frequent transfers of its officers. The Court also directed the integration of the 1930 helpline and all CEN police stations into the CCC’s framework to tackle the burgeoning menace of cybercrime. [Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18864, decided on 10-09-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Academically excellent MBA students get second chance as Bombay High Court quashes debarment 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, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3135, decided on 03-09-2025
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Technicalities Cannot Defeat a Child’s Fundamental Right to Education
In a civil writ petition filed by a minor petitioner through his father, challenging the rejection of his application for admission to a private school under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’), a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. while allowing the petition, held that a fundamental right, especially one as significant as the Right to Education, cannot be denied on the basis of technicalities or procedural irregularities. The Court observed that once a petitioner has been selected under the lottery draw for admission in the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) category, his application cannot be rejected merely because his Aadhaar Card did not contain the residential Ward number. [Daivik Rangwani v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4680, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Denying right to study on mere apprehension can spoil future’; Punjab and Haryana HC allows 21-year-old accused to travel abroad for studies
The present petition was filed by a 21 years old student (‘accused’), under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for quashing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the accused’s application to seek permission to pursue higher study abroad was dismissed. A Single Judge bench of Surya Pratap Singh J. observed that if the rights to pursue study and build-up career were denied on mere apprehension of fleeting legal process, it would certainly have an adverse impact on the accused’s career and could spoil his future. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to allow the accused to go abroad, and stated that the Trial Court could impose severe conditions to prevent delay in disposal of trial. [Anand v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 12742 of 2025, decided on 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay High Court dismisses MP Rajan Vichare’s plea challenging Naresh Mhaske’s 2024 Lok Sabha victory
In the present application, Naresh Ganpat Mhaske (‘Mhaske’), Member of Parliament from the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction), sought dismissal of the Election Petition filed by Rajan Baburao Vichare (‘Vichare’) of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray faction), arguing it lacked a valid cause of action and was not maintainable. Vichare alleged that Mhaske failed to disclose his criminal conviction in Form 26, as required by the amendment notified on 10-10-2018, making his election liable to be set aside. A Single Judge Bench of R. I. Chagla, J., while allowing the application, held that Mhaske’s conviction had not resulted in imprisonment of one year or more and therefore he was not required to disclose it. Consequently, the Election Petition was found to lack a valid cause of action and was thereby rejected. [Rajan Baburao Vichare v. Naresh Ganpat Mhaske, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3137, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Madras High Court dismisses PIL over Rahul Gandhi’s voter list fraud allegations; Petitioner fined Rs 1 Lakh
The present public interest litigation (‘PIL’) was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus against the Election Commission of India. The petition aimed to compel the Election Commission to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised on alleged voter list manipulation during the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha, as raised by Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition and further corroborated by Union Minister Anurag Thakur. The Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ*., and G. Arul Murugan, J., while dismissing the petition held that it lacked concrete material and relied solely on allegations and counter-allegations made on certain platforms. [V. Venkata Sivakumar v. Election Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6026, 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
EMPLOYMENT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Teachers who qualified TET/ CTET exam between 31-3-2019 and 1-9-2025 can continue service and be entitled to promotion
Apetition was filed against the rejection of petitioners’ transfer from an unaided establishment to an aided establishment, as they acquired the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification in the year 2021 which was after the statutory cut-off date of 31-3-2019. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ., opined that the Supreme Court judgment in the case Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 (Anjuman Trust case) did not reveal the fate of the candidates who either did not qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)/ CTET exam or had qualified it only after it was made statutorily mandatory but before 1-9-2025. Therefore, the Court held that dictum of the Anjuman Trust case (Supra) must be followed. Thus, the candidates who had acquired the required qualifications before the said judgment was passed i.e. on 1-9-2025, could continue their service and the candidates who did not acquire those qualifications shall be given 2 years to acquire the same. Accordingly, the petitioners were held to be entitled for approval of the transfer and the order refusing the said approval on account of failing to acquire TET qualification prior to 31-3-2019 was quashed and set aside. Additionally, the authorities concerned were directed to pass fresh order. [Sagar Dattatray Chorghe v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3170, decided on: 11-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Employers should not hinder ex-servicemen’s rehabilitation by denying them employment under quota: Punjab and Haryana High Court
In a petition filed by an ex-serviceman under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of directions to Respondents for his appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) (Electrical), A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that it was the duty of every employer to not create any unnecessary hindrances to the ex-servicemen’s rehabilitation by denying them employment opportunities under the ex-servicemen quota. Further, the Court stated that if the essential qualifications laid down for recruitment to civil employment were such that they nullify the benefit of reservation provided to ex-servicemen, then the whole exercise would go in vain. [Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 27430 of 2025, decided on 15-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | CCR Fund, Green Warriors to tackle Gwalior’s waste and cleanliness problem: Inside Madhya Pradesh HC’s suggestions
In a public interest litigation filed seeking indulgence in the matter of serious unhygienic conditions prevailing in Gwalior attributable to the accumulation of wet and dry garbage in different localities and the landfill site at Kedarpur, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak and Pushpendra Yadav, JJ., provided a list of suggestions to tackle the waste problem. [Sartaj Singh Tomar v. Union of India, WP No. 1653 of 2023, decided on 03-09-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
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, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5894, decided on 3-9-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘Alimony not intended to penalize husband or wife but to ensure child’s well-being’: Jharkhand HC orders father 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, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3141, decided on 4-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | ‘Able-bodied husband’s unemployment no excuse to evade legal duty to maintain wife’; Calcutta HC sets aside Family Court’s order
In the present petition, the wife challenged the Family Court’s judgment rejecting her request for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The husband argued that he was unemployed after being dismissed from his job and claimed that the wife earned enough to cover her daily expenses. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., while allowing the petition, held that Section 125 CrPC aims to ensure the wife’s sustenance at the same status and strata as the husband, not merely animal sustenance. The Court observed that the wife’s earning of Rs 12,000 per month could not justify refusal of maintenance, especially since the husband admitted his economic status was higher. [Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7647, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT | Right to change name protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, cannot be denied on technical issues
In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order issued by Respondent 3 (‘Board’), rejecting his request to change his name in the educational certificates and sought a direction upon the respondents to make the requested change. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., while observing that the right to change the name was an aspect of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, asked the Board to re-consider the petitioner’s request to alter his name in in his educational qualification certificates. [Mohd. Hassan v. State (UT of J&K), WP(C) No. 21 of 2025, decided on 11-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PATNA HIGH COURT | Patna High Court stalls circulation of AI generated video of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother
In a civil writ petition filed by petitioner seeking removal of AI generated video clipping of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother, a Division Bench of the P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ*, and Alok Kumar Sinha, J., while directing the respondents not to circulate the video clipping until further orders held that, prima facie, humiliating a sizeable class of persons in exhibiting video clip cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of dignity, liberty, and fraternity. [Vivekanand Singh v. Union of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15418 of 2025, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Mandating local surety from non-resident, not just logistical inconvenience but assault on fundamental rights: Punjab and Haryana High Court
In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioners-residents of Kolkata, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as they were alleged of producing forged documents in relation to their bail. A Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that there was no involvement of petitioners in the preparation of the fake documents of the local sureties in Gurugram. Further, the Court observed that mandating furnishing of a local surety from a non-resident was not merely a logistical but a profound assault on fundamental rights and such imposition was a de facto denial of right to bail. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners. However, it stated that the proceedings against the sureties would continue in accordance with the law. [Sumit Sharma v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 6979 of 2024, decided on 17-9-2025]
Read more HERE
GOVERNANCE LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC bars MCD from solid waste management at Delhi Airport and Aerocity; Affirms DIAL’s Domain
In a writ petition filed by Delhi International Airport Ltd. (‘DIAL’) for a direction to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) to exclude the Airport Zone from its tender notice dated 28-11-2024, (‘impugned tender notice’) whereby MCD invited tenders for setting up Material Recovery Facility (‘MRF’) for management of dry solid waste in Najafgarh Zone, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J held that waste management of Airport Zone was the domain of DIAL and that MCD could not claim exclusive rights over the same. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned tender notice to the extent of inclusion of Airport Zone and Aerocity within the scope of work provided under it. [Delhi International Airport Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5945, decided on 11-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PAROLE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Mere registration of FIR invalid ground to deny parole: Himachal Pradesh HC grants 42-days parole for agricultural purposes
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking his release on parole in a case where he was sentenced for offences under Section 354-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 6 and 14(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), and Sections 66-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), but his parole request was rejected by the District Magistrate, Kangra, a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., quashed the order of rejection and held that mere registration of an FIR, while the accused was previously released on parole, could not be the ground to deny his request because the prisoners must be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. [Sachin Kumar v. State of H.P., CWP No. 10750 of 2025, decided on 12-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC grants interim injunction protecting Aishwarya Rai’s Personality Rights; Directs blocking of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), wherein the plaintiff, Aishwarya Rai, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 9 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of Aishwarya Rai’s persona constituted an infringement of her Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Aishwarya Rai and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels disseminating content that violates her Personality Rights. [Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943, decided on 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Abhishek Bachchan to protect his Personality Rights
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Abhishek Bachchan, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 14 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of Abhishek Bachchan’s persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Abhishek Bachchan and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels disseminating content violating his Personality Rights. [Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5944, decided on 10-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PMLA
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay High Court quashes money laundering case against Chamankar Enterprises in Maharashtra Sadan Scam
In a petition filed by K.S. Chamankar Enterprises and its partners (‘petitioners’) seeking to set aside the criminal proceedings in the Maharashtra Sadan money laundering case, pending against them, the Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., opined that since the petitioners had been discharged of the predicate offence by the Court of competent jurisdiction therefore, money laundering case against them cannot be continued. Hence, the Court quashed and set aside the charge-sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the ongoing money laundering case proceedings, against the petitioners. [Krishna Shantaram Chamankar v. Union of India, W.P. No. 3400 of 2025, decided on 16-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PROPERTY LAW
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Accountability over Celebrity status: No leeway to cricketer Yusuf Pathan as Gujarat High Court holds him liable for encroaching on residential land
In a petition to quash an order dated 6-6-2024 (‘impugned order’), wherein Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (‘VMC’) proposal to allot a plot of land to the petitioner, Yusuf Pathan, on lease for a period of 99 years without holding any public auction had been rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Mauna M. Bhatt, J, held that Yusuf Khan being a former international cricketer and a Member of Parliament had a higher responsibility to uphold the law. The Court thus, held him liable for encroaching upon a plot of land by building a boundary wall over it even when no order of allotment had been passed in his favour. [Yusuf Mehmudkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, Sp. Civil Appln No. 9027 of 2024, decided on 21-8-2025]
Read more HERE
PUBLIC ORDER
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Rightly detained for his conduct”: Madhya Pradesh HC denies relief to man who opened fire in public and uploaded the video on social media
In a writ petition filed by a man who open fired in a residential area and uploaded a video of it challenging the detention order passed against him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (‘NSA’), the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Pushpendra Yadav, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the accused was rightly detained for his conduct. [Shivang Bhargav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 6580, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | “Interfaith participation in religious festivals not against Constitution”; Karnataka High Court dismisses plea against Dasara festivities inauguration by Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq
In series of writ petition challenging the Karnataka Government ‘s decision to invite acclaimed author Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the Dasara festival inauguration at the Chamundeshwari Temple, a Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru, CJ.* and C.M. Joshi, J., dismissed the petitions holding that the Dasara festivities are a State-sponsored function and inviting a person from another religion does not violate any constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court further held that participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under Constitution. [H.S. Gaurav v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 27824/2025, decided on 15-09-2025]
Read more HERE
TENANCY LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds eviction petition; considers admitted rate of rent to determine tenant’s arrears
In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (‘tenant’) against the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed against the eviction order against him passed by the Rent Controller, a Single Judge Bench of Vikram Aggarwal, J. held that increase clause could not be considered since the rent note was unregistered, thus, only the admitted rate of rent was considered to find that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Further, the Court upheld the eviction petition and stated that it is well settled that in revisional jurisdiction, interference against the concurrent findings is required only when the findings are perverse. [Bikram Singh v. Mohinder Pal, CR No. 2081 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Can landlord’s pension income be used as a ground to counter bona-fide requirement in eviction proceedings? Himachal Pradesh HC answers
While deciding this revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (‘Rent Act’), challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla (‘Appellate Authority’), whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Shimla, directed him to vacate the shop premises as the landlord’s bona fide requirement, was affirmed; a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Singh Thakur, J., dismissed the petition, observing that the landlord’s pension income could not be raised as a ground to counter landlord’s bona fide requirement of the shop for expanding his business and directed the tenant to vacate the premises by 31-10-2025. [Tulsi Ram v. Mustaq Qureshi, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4527, decided on 02-09-2025]
Read more HERE
Must Watch
Join the discussion
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.