This week’s roundup travels across High Courts to discuss important cases such as, Ajaz Khan’s bail, PM Modi video, Hijab in School Row, WIPRO’s trade mark, Pothole Deaths, Reservation to Transgender Persons in Public Employment, and more.
ACQUITTAL
MADRAS HIGH COURT | “No grievous hurt or use of weapons reported by victim”; Section 397 IPC conviction of man accused of robbing senior citizen, set aside
In the present appeal, the appellant-accused sought to set aside the Trial Court’s judgment for an alleged robbery involving theft of jewellery and cash from a senior citizen contending false implication and inconsistencies in witness statements and flaws in identification, including that the complainant-victim had seen him at the police station before the parade and other witnesses did not support her identification. A Single Judge Bench of M. Nirmal Kumar, J., while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the accused’s conviction under Sections 392 read with 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), holding that the victim had not reported grievous hurt or threat to life, and neither the appellant-accused nor the absconding accused had used any arms or weapons. However, the accused was convicted under Sections 392 read with 394 of the IPC, since there was no suggestion to the victim as to why she would falsely enact a drama or give a false complaint. [R. Suresh v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 8492] Read more HERE
BAIL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail granted to Ajaz Khan over sexually explicit remarks against Harsh Beniwal’s family
An application was filed by Ajaz Khan, an Indian actor, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR filed by Harsh Beniwal’s mother, regarding the sexually explicit remarks he had made against her and her daughter. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., held that there was no need for Ajaz Khan’s custodial interrogation because the relevant documents, i.e., his i-phone and i-Pad were in the custody of Bombay police. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to him and stated that every content on the internet should be uploaded with great caution, especially when the uploader had a large audience and exercised influence in society. [Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6381, decided on 9-10-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Bail granted to man accused of sharing WhatsApp video featuring PM Modi and Pakistan PM
In a bail application filed by the accused seeking release during the pendency of the trial in a case registered under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), the Single judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deswal, J., said that the video uploaded by the accused on his WhatsApp status did not attract the ingredients of Section 152 BNS. In a bail application filed by the accused seeking release during the pendency of the trial in a case registered under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), the Single judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deswal, J., said that the video uploaded by the accused on his WhatsApp status did not attract the ingredients of Section 152 BNS. [Javed v. State of UP, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22482 of 2025, decided on 08-10-2025] Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Vicarious Liability attributed to airline despite outsourced catering’: Air India directed to pay Rs 35,000 to passenger for hair in flight meal
In an appeal suit filed by Air India under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional City Civil Court, wherein Air India was directed to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as damages to a passenger who found a strand of hair in a sealed food packet served during a flight, the Single Judge Bench of P.B. Balaji, J. while reiterating the settled legal principle that in claims based on tortious liability, the burden of proof lies on the claimant, the Court held that the failure to adduce oral or documentary evidence disentitles the respondent to any compensation. Nonetheless, the Court found that Air India was negligent in providing contaminated food and had further attempted to shift liability to its caterer, despite the fact that the airline remained vicariously liable to its passenger, with whom it had direct contractual obligations. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court’s award of ₹1,00,000/- in damages. However, given the established negligence and the airline’s attempt to deflect responsibility, the Court imposed Rs. 35, 000 costs on Air India. [General Manager, Air India v. P.Sundarapariporanam, A.S. No. 259 of 2023, decided on 10-10-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea of alibi cannot be considered at stage of filing the charge-sheet
In the present case, the issue for consideration arose that whether plea of alibi could be taken by the accused at the stage of filing of charge-sheet. A Single Judge Bench of Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J., stated that Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’) states that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him. Thus, it was for the petitioner to establish his case by adducing evidence before the Sessions Court, and therefore, at this stage, his contention as regards presence or absence on the spot could not be considered. The Court stated that as per the Section 106 of the IEA the ground of alibi could not be considered at the stage of the filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the order passed by the Sessions Court was correct and proper and did not require any interference. [Prashant Bhausaheb Patil v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 2052 of 2024, decided on: 7-10-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Apprehension of delay in trial constitutes sufficient cause for filing condonation of delay
The instant interim application was filed by the applicant (accused) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for grant of bail. A Single Judge Bench of S.M Modak, J., held that as the delay was for 118 days which was less than 180 days as per the proviso of Section 14(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC & ST Act’) and the ground of apprehension of the applicant of delay in the trail constituted sufficient cause for its condonation. Therefore, the Court allowed the interim application by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. [Amit Kailas Varghade v. State of Maharashtra, I.A. 2595of 2025, decided on: 8-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Company must be a party for Directors to face prosecution
In petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of complaint cases against the accused persons as well as the order dated 6-6-2024 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Trial Court had rejected the accused persons’ contention that in the absence of arraignment of the Company as a party, prosecution against the directors alone was not maintainable, the Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J, held that when the alleged act is committed by the company, its officers cannot be prosecuted in isolation. The commission of offence by the Company is the foundation only after liability can be extended to its directors. Thus, the Court allowed both the petitions vide the instant common judgment. [Nilesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Office, Crl. M.C. No. 8535 of 2024, decided on 9-10-2025] Read more HERE
CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
KERALA HIGH COURT | Hijab in School Row: Police protection granted to School facing protest
In a writ petition filed by the management of St. Rita’s Public School, seeking to pass an interim order directing to provide adequate police protection to the school, its premises and the managerial staff and to provide adequate protection of conduct of exams from 15-10-2025, pending final disposal of this writ petition, a Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh granted police protection to a CBSE-affiliated school in Ernakulam district following protests triggered by the school’s refusal to allow a Muslim student to wear a hijab in violation of its uniform policy. [St. Rita’s Public School v. Director General of Police, WP(C) No. 37785 of 2025 (W), decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
ENVOIRONMENT LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Mangrove restoration and prevention of unauthorized construction directed in protected areas in Kunhimangalam
In the present public interest litigation, the petitioner pointed out the destruction of dense mangrove forests in Kunhimangalam Village, Payyanur Taluk, Kannur District, in order to convert the area into a commercial resort. The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar*, CJ., and Basant Balaji, J., condemned the inaction of the official respondents and stated that the situation was created because they did not take any action in time to prevent the damage, and the issue was dealt with in a pedantic manner. It was thus observed that they were under statutory obligation to implement protective measures within designated protected zones and to actively prevent any unauthorized constructions therein while giving them three months to do the same. [P.P. Rajan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 13495 of 2023, decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
HABEAS CORPUS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Habeas Corpus petition cannot be invoked as a routine to seek supervision of Missing Person Report Investigation
In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to produce her brother, a missing CRPF Constable, a Division Bench of Avneesh Jhingan* and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, JJ., dismissed the petition. The Court held that a petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus does not lie where there is no illegal detention, and the sole purpose is to seek supervision of the investigation of a Missing Person Report (‘MPR’). The Court clarified that the unlawful detention is the sine qua non for issuance of the writ, and the grievance against the manner of investigation is a matter for the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). [Babita v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.290/2025, decided on 24-09-2025] Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | WIPRO declared a well-known trade mark
In a civil commercial suit filed by WIPRO seeking declaration of the mark ‘WIPRO’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that WIPRO had garnered immense goodwill and reputation both in India and abroad and such deserved to be classified as a well-known trade mark. [WIPRO Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Shivam Udhyog , C.S. (COMM) No. 945 of 2025, decided on 6-10-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘This case warrants immediate grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief’; Suniel Shetty protected from AI deepfakes and misuse of persona
The present application was filed by Suniel Shetty seeking protection of his personality rights, privacy rights and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and as well as for the protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bech of Arif S. Doctor, J., held that Suniel Shetty had made a prima facie case and if the ad-interim relief was not granted, he would suffer irreparable injury and harm. Therefore, the Court granted ex-parte interim relief to Suniel Shetty, restricting the defendants from utilizing or infringing uniquely identifiable attribute, including through Artificial Intelligence generated content, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, etc. The Defendants were also directed to take down/remove/disable access to such infringing listings/pages/content. [Suniel V Shetty v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar, I.A No. 32198 of 2025, decided on: 10-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Alchem International restrained from using trade mark ‘ALCHEM’ in sale of medical products
In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the petitioner, Alkem Laboratories sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant, Alchem International from using the trade mark ‘ALCHEM’ in sale of its pharmaceutical and medical products, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that the plaintiff’s mark ‘ALKEM’ and the defendant’s mark ‘ALCHEM’ were phonetically and visually similar. Thus, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘ALCHEM’ for manufacturing and selling its medical and pharmaceutical products. [Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., CS (COMM) No. 1050 of 2018, decided on 10-10-2025] Read more HERE
JUVENILES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Being done arbitrarily in absence of any definite parameters”: Guidelines issued for preliminary assessment under S. 15 Juvenile Justice Act
In a revision petition filed seeking quashing of orders passed by the Children’s Court and Juvenile Justice Board (‘the Board’) wherein the petitioner minor was held to be tried as an adult, the Single Judge Bench of Siddharth, J., allowed the petition, holding that the impugned orders were not in accordance with law. Hence, the preliminary assessment of the petitioner had to be conducted anew by the Board in accordance with the provided guidelines. [Y v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. 3690 of 2025, decided on 10-10-2025] Read more HERE
NI ACT
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | 20% compensation deposit under S. 148 of NI Act is not mandatory, Appellate Courts have discretion
In a criminal revision application challenging the order dated 17-8-2024 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Appellate Court, in exercise of its power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’), had directed the appellant to deposit 20 percent of the compensation payable by it, the Single Judge Bench of R.T. Vachhani, J, upheld the impugned order and held that the Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to exercise discretion under Section 148 of the Act in imposing the condition of deposit of 20 percent of compensation amount. [Mahadev Enterprise v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 4371, decided on 22-9-2025] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Cheque for Time-Barred Debt Revives Enforceability Under S. 25(3) Contract Act; Dishonour attracts Section 138 NI Act
In a batch of criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the acquittal of the accused in three cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’), a Single-Judge Bench of Pramil Kumar Mathur, J., set aside the order of acquittal and dismissed the accused’s petition against his conviction. The Court held that a time-barred debt becomes a legally enforceable debt or liability for the purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act when a cheque is issued towards its repayment. The Court observed that the cheque constitutes a written promise to pay a time-barred debt under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872. [Ratiram Yadav v. Gopal Sharma, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1305/2018, decided on 08-10-2025] Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DELHI HIGH COURT | “Not only deceitful, but also misuse and abuse of process of law”: Man fined Rs 50,000 for filing petition without NGO’s authorisation
In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner-NGO seeking directions to the respondents to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction at one property. However, Mr. F, the person who had filed the petition, was not authorized. A Single Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 upon him for gross malpractice and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (‘DCP’) to investigate the matter. [Delhi ki Galiyan NGO v. Deputy Commr., W.P.(C) No. 10595 of 2024, decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
PRISON
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Long incarceration without Parole/Furlough can lead to anarchy in jail’: State Agencies slammed for not following Prison Rules
A petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of parole for one month in FIR under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for his mental health and on account of the ill-health of his father, however, no order was passed even though more than one month had passed. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., criticized the State Agencies for not following Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (‘Prison Rules’) and showing their defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of furlough and parole. Accordingly, the Court granted the same to the petitioner and disposed of the petition. [Lalit@Lucky v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) No. 3177 of 2025, decided on 8-10-2025] Read more HERE
PROPERTY LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Absence of one legal heir from partition deed not valid ground to refuse mutation of property: Tehsildar directed to effect property’s mutation
The present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking mutation of his allotted share in the property, based on a registered partition deed executed among the parties, as the Tehsildar had refused to grant the request stating one of the legal heirs (‘excluded sharer’) was absent from the partition deed. A Single Judge Bench of C. Jayachandran, J., while allowing the petition, directed the Tehsildar to effect mutation in respect of the property allotted to the petitioner’s share, holding that the absence of one legal heir from the partition deed was not a valid ground for refusing mutation. [Rajendran Ashari R. v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 41687 of 2024, decided on 07-10-2025] Read more HERE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
KERALA HIGH COURT | PIL to prohibit sale of Arundhati Roy’s ‘Mother Mary Comes to Me’ whose book cover showed the author smoking, dismissed
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking to prohibit the sale, circulation, and display of Arundhati Roy’s book — ‘Mother Mary Comes to Me’, as its cover depicted the author smoking a cigarette, which was alleged to be in contravention of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (‘Act of 2003’). The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar, CJ.*, and Basant Balaji, J., dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioner had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under the guise of public interest, despite there being an alternative remedy of approaching the Steering Committee available. [Rajasimhan v. Union of India, WP (PIL) No. 117 of 2025, decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
RENT AND TENANCY LAWS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Landlord not required to disclose exact nature of use of premise in eviction petition
In a revision petition challenging the order dated 3-11-2017 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Additional Rent Controller (‘ARC’) had dismissed the eviction petition stating that the landlord had failed to disclose the exact nature of use of the premises, the Single Judge Bench, Saurabh Banerjee, J, held that as long as the landlord had a bona fide requirement of the premise, he was not required to disclose the exact nature of use of the premises in an eviction petition. [H.S. Banka v. Mohan Lal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6372] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Sale, purchase or lease of other properties by landlord not an impediment to file eviction proceedings
In a revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (‘ARC’) allowing the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., held that sale, purchase or lease of other properties by the landlord were not an impediment for him to file eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the subject premise immediately. [Mohinder Singh v. Satish Chander Sikka, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6371, decided on 8-10-2025] Read more HERE
ROADS AND RAILWAYS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Right to safe roads is a fundamental right under Art. 21’: Compensation offered for pothole deaths, imposing liability on erring officials and contractors
In a suo motu Public Interest Litigation initiated in 2013 concerning the deplorable condition of roads and recurring pothole-related deaths and injuries in Maharashtra, an Interim Application was filed by the petitioner, seeking Court’s intervention, wherein, the Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ., opined that despite several orders having been passed by the Court since 2015, the matter required cognizance each year during monsoon due to continuing deaths and injuries caused by potholes and open manholes, constituting a gross violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to have roads in reasonable condition was an integral part of Article 21, and held that civic authorities and state agencies had failed to discharge their constitutional obligations despite repeated directions and assurances, noting that merely reminding authorities of their duties without awarding compensation would amount to rendering lip service to citizens’ fundamental rights. Therefore, the Court directed that compensation ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 be paid for injuries and Rs. 6,00,000 for deaths caused by potholes or open manholes, constituted Committees for determination and disbursement of compensation, mandated recovery of compensation amounts from officers concerned, who were responsible, upon inquiry. Furthermore, the Court ordered strict disciplinary and penal action including blacklisting against those found guilty, directed that all potholes be attended to within forty-eight hours of being reported. [High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, PIL No. 71 of 2013, decided on: 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Notional pension granted to family after regularising deceased employee’s 13 years of daily-wage service
The present petition was filed by the wife of the deceased employee (‘wife’), claiming notional pension and notional family pension and actual family pension on account of her husband’s service as the Fitter, which was denied, because according to the Authorities, he had not rendered 10 years of qualifying service. A Single Judge Bench of Ranjan Sharma, J., relying on cases entitling the Class-III and Class-IV Employees for pension or family pension benefits, ordered pension to the employee notionally with effect from the date of his retirement and thereafter, the notional family pension would accrue to his wife from the date of his death till 31-12-2017. Further, the actual family pension would be released from 01-01-2018 onwards. [Sudarshna Devi v. State of H.P., CWPOA No. 6366 of 2019, decided on 08-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Lack of policy decision flagged on providing reservation to transgender persons in public employment
While hearing a petition regarding recruitment to various posts in the Establishment of Delhi High Court which raised issues pertaining to non-compliance of National Legal Services Authority v. UOI 2014 (5) SCC 438 (‘NALSA case’) on part of the Central and State Governments in taking steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in order to extend all kinds of reservation not only in admissions to educational institutions but also for public appointments, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., directed to register the same as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) and expressed concern that steps ensuring welfare of transgender persons were yet to be taken by providing them reservations in employment. [Praveen Singh v. High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 14880 of 2025, decided on 6-10-2025] Read more HERE
STAMP ACT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Sisters relinquishing rights of co-owned property in brother’s favour not gift under Stamp Act
An appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Single Judge upholding the impounding of the Relinquishment Deeds (‘RDs’), executed in his favour by his five sisters, on account of deficient stamp duty by treating them as gift deeds. The Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., held that the relinquishment of rights on a property by the sisters, who were co-owners, in favour of their brother, another co-owner, could not be said to be a gift for the purposes of the Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’). The Court stated that the procedure contemplated by the Stamp Act facilitated the collection of revenue for the State and the nomenclature of a document was not decisive for the purpose of adjudicating the liability to pay stamps. Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the relinquishment of rights by the sisters was in the nature of a Family Settlement. [Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6367] Read more HERE