This week’s roundup traverses various important legal developments that took place in the High Courts, such as animal cruelty in cock fights, spreading religious enmity via unsaid words, alleged illegal felling of 488 trees near Bhopal, daughter’s right to father’s property under Mitakshara Law, verification reform in Slum Schemes, Madhu Kishwar murder case, Balasore self-immolation case update, and more.
ALCOHOL
KERALA HIGH COURT | Denial of liquor quota to retired CISF Officers from CAPF canteens while granting it to other CAPF Officers is discriminatory
In the present set of petitions, the petitioners, who were retired Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) personnel, challenged an order passed by the Director General of CISF (‘DG of CISF’) wherein the CISF personnel were denied the benefits of liquor supply from the canteens set up for the retired Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPF’) personnel. A Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., set aside the impugned order and held that the denial of the liquor supplied through canteens to the retired CISF personnel was grossly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the DG of CISF to share the data of retired CISF personnel for the online sale system so that the said benefits could be extended to them. [CISF Ex-Service Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10849, decided on 21-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ANIMALS, BIRDS AND FISHES
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Organising cock fights violates animal cruelty law; Cultural status cannot be conferred in Tamil Nadu’: Plea seeking permission for event, dismissed
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Collector as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and seeking a consequential direction to permit the conduct of a cock fight event (without knives) on 26-10- 2025 at Kaaraikeni, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J.,dismissed the petition, holding that organizing or inciting animals or birds to fight for entertainment purposes is expressly prohibited under Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. [M. Muventhan v. Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9164, decided on 09-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Arbitral awards by lay arbitrators tested for substantial correctness, but natural justice remains non-negotiable’; Award passed by family elders, set aside
In petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated 09-10-2005/ 10-10-2005 passed by the family elders who were chosen by parties to arbitrate the dispute and resolve the same (respondents 1 to 3) as erroneous, arbitrary and unjust, a Single Judge Bench of N.Anand Venkatesh, J. said that while arbitral awards by lay arbitrators and family elders are generally assessed for substantial correctness rather than technical precision, the principles of natural justice are non-negotiable. In this case, the petitioner was denied a crucial opportunity to present his case, which amounted to a violation of Section 34(2)(a)(iii). The Court held that an award can be deemed in conflict with the public policy of India if it violates the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the award was liable to be set aside. [M. Maher Dadha v. S. Mohanchand Dadha, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9152, decided on 23-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Order terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act is not an ‘Award’
In petitions filed under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), seeking substitution or appointment of an arbitrator and/ or to pass an order enabling the arbitrator to continue proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Arora, J, allowed the petitions. The Court further held that an order passed under Section 25(a) of the Act would not qualify as an ‘arbitral award’ and therefore the parties would not be required to challenge the same under Section 34 of the Act. [Mecwel Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. G.E. Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) No. 38 of 2025, decided on 14-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
DELHI HIGH COURT | 1 Month custody directed for man who intimidated Local Commissioner during Court-Ordered Inspection
In a criminal contempt case wherein, the contemnor was found guilty of intimidating Local Commissioner during a Court-Ordered Inspection, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ., directed that the police authorities take him into custody for one month. [Court on its own motion v. Nitin Bansal, CONT. CAS. (CRL) 16/2024, decided on 29-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CONTRACT LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘When breach of contract is continuous, limitation runs from date of cessation of breach’; Dismissal of suit for damages, upheld
In the present appeal, the plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the suit for damages for breach of contract by the Trial Court holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The Division Bench of Sathish Ninan* and P. Krishna Kumar, JJ., while dismissing the appeal, observed that in cases of breach of contract, the limitation period began running when the continuous breach ceased. The Court held that since the plaintiff failed to institute the suit within the prescribed period of three years from the date of such cessation, the suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court for being barred by limitation. [V. Chandran v. Aliamma George, RFA No. 79 of 2013, decided on 27-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CRUELTY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | False allegation of alcoholism against husband, compromising his social position as public servant is cruelty
In a first appeal filed by a husband against the judgment passed by the Family Court rejecting his divorce petition filed on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal on the grounds of cruelty committed by the wife against the husband by making false allegations of husband’s alcoholism and contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation. [A v. B, First Appeal No. 334 of 2021, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Apathy towards aged in-laws, prolonged denial of intimacy and false complaints against husband amounts to cruelty
In an appeal filed against an order dated 30-9-2021 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court had granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) on the grounds of cruelty against the husband and his family, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar*, JJ, held that prolonged denial of marital intimacy, false allegations of harassment against husband and apathy towards aging in-laws amounts to cruelty under the HMA. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order. [X v. Y., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6112, decided on 19-9-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘False allegations cause mental agony, doom marriage’; Divorce granted to husband over wife’s false claims of his illicit relationships
In an appeal filed by a husband against the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing his divorce petition and granting him a lesser relief of a decree of judicial separation, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal on the ground of cruelty, holding that the wife had failed in establishing her allegations against the husband’s illicit relationships and such false allegations amounted to cruelty by wife. [B v. C, First Appeal No. 930 of 2024, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Serious mental cruelty’; Divorce granted to wife subjected to constant unfounded suspicion, monitoring, and forced job resignation
In an appeal filed by a wife against the judgment of Family Court, which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, the division bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ. held that the wife had satisfactorily proved that the husband’s conduct of monitoring movements and forcing her to resign amounted to cruelty, creating a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for her to continue living with him. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment, and dissolved the marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, effective from the date of the judgment. [X v. Y, Mat.Appeal No. 518 of 2021, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DIVORCE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Trial Court cannot grant divorce merely for wife’s absence’; Ex parte divorce granted on Husband’s unchallenged testimony, set aside
In the present appeal, the wife challenged the divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Thane, which allowed the husband’s petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging cruelty. The decree was granted ex parte, solely on the husband’s unchallenged testimony, as the wife failed to file her written statement or lead evidence. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, held that the Trial Court should have analysed the husband’s evidence and recorded its findings on the issue of cruelty, but instead answered the issue solely on the ground that the wife was absent. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court ignored the well-settled legal position that proceedings are not to be decreed automatically merely because a party did not lead evidence or file a written statement. [Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar, Family Court Appeal No. 101 of 2025, decided on 01-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DEBT, FINANCIAL AND MONETARY LAWS
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Bank cannot unilaterally deduct money from pension account of retired employee acting as loan guarantor
In the present petition, a retired Rail Coach Factory employee challenged the State Bank of India’s (‘Bank’) deduction of Rs 5,00,000 from his joint account, alleging it was taken from protected pension funds without notice or due process. He claimed this violated his right to livelihood and sought refund and protection against arbitrary action by the Bank. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J., while allowing the petition held that the Bank’s debit of Rs 5 Lakh from the petitioner’s account, which contained his pension, was done without any court order or prior notice, and thus prima facie violates the principle that pension could not be taken except by due process. The Court emphasised that, given the continuing impact on the petitioner’s livelihood and the alleged violation of fundamental rights, a marginal delay did not defeat substantive justice. [Bharat Chandra Mallick v. SBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3891, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Banks not bound to accept OTS offers or reveal evaluation criteria
In the present petition, the petitioner, Director and Shareholder of N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructures challenged Indian Bank’s (‘Bank’) rejection of her One Time Settlement (‘OTS’) proposals for a defaulted loan. She claimed the Bank acted unfairly by not revealing benchmark criteria or following Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) guidelines, and sought Court directions to compel disclosure and consideration of the OTS. The Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor, and Rajnish R. Vyas*, JJ., while dismissing the petition held that when parties were governed by terms and conditions of a contract with full understanding, they could not subsequently change their stand and deviate from the obligation to repay the amount. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was rooted in fairness, which would obviously mean repayment of the outstanding amount within the agreed period. [Archana Wani v. Indian Bank, Writ Petition No. 3766 of 2023, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Crypto currency qualifies as property that may be held in trust
While considering an application seeking interim protection alleging that the applicant’s 3,532.30 XRP coins on the WazirX platform operated by Zanmai Labs (P) Ltd. (‘the Company’) were wrongfully frozen following a cyber-attack; a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., stated that there can be no doubt that “crypto currency” is a property. It is not a tangible property nor is it a currency. However, it is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed (in a beneficial form). It is capable of being held in trust. The Court thus allowed the application and held that the applicant is entitled to interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’). [Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs (P) Ltd., Original Application No.194 of 2025, decided on 25-10-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Minimal force used to maintain discipline not an offence’; Case against School teacher for beating students with cane, quashed
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by an accused teacher facing charges under Section 324 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) for beating his students with a cane., a Single Judge Bench of C. Pratheep Kumar, J., quashed the criminal proceedings against the teacher. The Court held that the teacher had used only the minimal force necessary to maintain discipline in the classroom and had acted without any intention to cause harm. It further observed that the prosecution was initiated merely because the parents had misunderstood the teacher’s bona fide intention in correcting the students. [Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10898, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Balasore self-immolation case: Bail refused to FM College HOD and Principal, but granted conditional relief to two students
In the present applications, the petitioners, a college Assistant Professor, Principal, and two students sought bail after being arrested for their alleged involvement in the suicide of a 20-year-old student of Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, who reportedly faced persistent sexual harassment, mental torture, and threats from faculty members. A Single Judge Bench of Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., while disposing of the bail applications held that the genesis of such a drastic step by a young student lied in the hierarchy of the college administration and its inaction towards the harassment complained of by the victim. The Court emphasised that the statutory requirements were duly followed and found no illegality in the decisions of the Trial Courts, therefore, the arrest and detention were not arbitrary. [Samira Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 9219 of 2025, decided on 22-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Jamia Millia Islamia’s order dissolving Jamia Teachers Association, quashed
The petition was filed by the petitioner (‘Jamia Teachers Association’) challenging the orders passed by the respondent, Jamia Millia Islamia (‘Jamia University’), whereby it dissolved the Jamia Teachers Association and sealed its office. A Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., held that the Jamia University’s actions appeared to be administrative in nature, bearing no rational nexus to a legitimate regulatory purpose. Accordingly, the Court quashed Jamia University’s order and disposed of the petition. [Jamia Teachers Association v. Jamia Millia Islamia, W.P.(C) No. 1490 of 2023, decided on 28-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Shocking state of affairs”: Suo motu cognizance taken of alleged illegal felling of 488 trees near Bhopal
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported illegal chopping of 488 trees near Bhopal, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., directed the Public Works Department (“PWD”) to file an affidavit indicating how many trees had been cut for the subject project and how many trees are further sought to be cut. [In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 42565 of 2025, decided on 29-10-2025]
Read more HERE
EVIDENCE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Photograph of place of occurrence revealing impossibility of rape is relevant to the trial proceedings
The present petition challenged the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) to permit the defence counsel to confront a witness during cross-examination by showing two documents which dealt with the place of occurrence of the offence, during a rape trial. A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that a photograph depicting the interior of the place where the rape took place was not irrelevant to the proceedings and the Trial Court was wrong to refuse the defence counsel from asking questions related to it. The Court directed the Trial Court to permit the defence counsel to confront the prosecution witness with the said photograph. The present petition challenged the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) to permit the defence counsel to confront a witness during cross-examination by showing two documents which dealt with the place of occurrence of the offence, during a rape trial. A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that a photograph depicting the interior of the place where the rape took place was not irrelevant to the proceedings and the Trial Court was wrong to refuse the defence counsel from asking questions related to it. The Court directed the Trial Court to permit the defence counsel to confront the prosecution witness with the said photograph. [Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10479, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Return of Mahar can be shown by parties’ statements and not merely through Khula Nama
In the present appeal, the appellant-husband challenged the divorce granted by the Family Court to the respondent-wife, arguing that there was no conciliation attempt between parties before the wife issued the Khula Nama and that the there was no mention of offer of return of Mahar in the Khula Nama. The Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran* and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ., dismissed the appeal and observed that the return of Mahar could be ascertained not just from the Khula Nama but also from the statement of the parties made before the Family Court. [Mohd. Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 11000, decided on 13-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Mitakshara Law| Daughter can claim right in father’s property only if he died before 1956 and has no sons
In a second appeal filed against the Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the Civil Court’s decision wherein the appellant was denied a share in her late father’s property, the Single Judge Bench of Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties were governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law as the appellant’s father died before 1956. Hence, on his death, his self-acquired property would devolve entirely upon defendant 1’s father, who had rightly conveyed his rights over the suit property to the defendants. [Ragmania v. Jagmet, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10013, decided on 13-10-2025]
Read more HERE
HATE SPEECH
ALALHABAD HIGH COURT | Why are even “unsaid words” in WhatsApp message are likely to promote enmity, hatred between religious communities
In a writ petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under Sections 299 and 353(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’), against the accused for allegedly sending inflammatory messages regarding religious conversion of women and his brother’s arrest, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir And Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the matter required investigation as the message sent by the accused conveyed an underlying and subtle message that his brother had been targeted in a false case because he belonged to a particular religious community. [Afaq Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 6844, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
HEALTH AND MEDICAL LAW
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Insurer not a necessary or proper party in medical negligence consumer complaints; impleadment rejected
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking to set aside or quash the order dated 07-03-2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Guntur and the order of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada with further direction to the District Forum to implead the 3rd respondent, a Division Bench of Ravi Nath Tilhari and Challa Gunaranjan, JJ. held that the insurance company is neither a necessary nor proper party claiming compensation for medical negligence against the petitioner. [Mudunuri Ravi Kiran (Dr.) v. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3703, decided on 09-10-2025]
Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Called for verification reform in Slum Schemes amid fraudulent entitlement claims using forged documents
In the present petition, the petitioner sought review of an earlier order, claiming wrongful denial of a rehabilitation tenement and rent under a slum redevelopment scheme. She alleged that Pioneer India Developers (P) Ltd. (‘Developer’) had misattributed a transit room meant for a Trust, and that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) failed to correct the error, resulting in the denial of her residential entitlement. The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata*, JJ., while dismissing the petition, held that the pleadings revealed suppression of material facts and selective disclosure intended to mislead the Court into granting reliefs to which the petitioner was not entitled. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs 5 Lakh to the Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment. [Mumtaz H. Khoja v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4048, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Ex-parte injunction granted to Skechers in trade mark and copyright dispute over counterfeit goods
In the present interim application, Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. (‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit against Manmeet Singh Trading (‘defendant’), alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright through counterfeit goods bearing Skechers’ registered marks and artistic works. To prevent further harm, the plaintiffs sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Skechers’ trade marks and artistic works on counterfeit goods, held that there was a strong prima facie case for infringement of trade marks and copyright had been made out by the plaintiffs. The Court emphasised that the adoption of the plaintiffs’ trade marks and artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by the defendants was completely dishonest. [Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh Trading, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4047, decided by 10-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | No relief to Jamp India, VS International over copyright infringement of Jubilant Generic’s Product Dossiers
In a batch of two appeals filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’) against the order passed by Commercial Court restraining the appellants from reproducing or using in any manner the copyrighted Product Dossiers of the defendant in relation to certain products, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra*, J., dismissed the appeals holding that the findings recorded by the Commercial Court were not perverse as the appellants did commit copyright infringement. [Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Jubilant Generics Ltd., Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Plea to cancel ‘INDIA GATE’ trade mark, dismissed; Clarifies jurisdiction is with Delhi HC
The present Special Jurisdiction Case was filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’) and the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’), by the petitioner (‘Pas Agro Foods’), a firm in Kerala, to cancel the trade mark registration ‘INDIA GATE’ owned by Respondent 1 (‘KRBL Ltd.’), incorporated in New Delhi. A Single Judge Bench of M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J., dismissed the present case, observing that the rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act could not be filed before the Kerala High Court as Delhi High Court was the proper forum given that the trade mark was registered at the Delhi Trade Mark Registry. [Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd., SP. JC No. 2 of 2025, decided on 27-10-2025]
Read more HERE
JUDICIARY
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Chargesheet against retired district judge in 24-year-old allegation, quashed; Cited 4-year limit on disciplinary proceedings against retired officials
In the present petition, a retired Principal District Judge challenged a chargesheet issued for allegedly purchasing land in 2000 without prior permission. Since the charge was nearly 24 years old and issued post-retirement, he sought its quashing and a direction to process his pension under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Rules, 1978’). The Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ., and R. Poornima, J., while allowing the petition held that the misconduct alleged was almost 24 years old and, therefore, the chargesheet did not relate to an event within four years preceding its institution. The Court emphasised that any earlier enquiry was merely preliminary and did not satisfy the legal requirement to treat departmental proceedings as having commenced prior to the issuance of the statement of charges. [K. Sadhasivam v. Principal District Judge, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9165, decided on 14-10-2025]
Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “If husband has duty towards parents, he also has duty to empower wife”: Maintenance granted to Homeopathy doctor pursuing MD
In a criminal revision petition filed by the wife against the Trial Court judgment wherein her application for maintenance was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., allowed the petition, holding that the wife was presently pursuing her MD (Homeopathy) and required support. The Court further held that the husband has duty to empower wife and since he was serving in a public sector undertaking and earning a handsome salary of Rs 74,000, he shall pay Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance to the wife. [V v. S, Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025].
Read more HERE
MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Each instance of sex determination undermines value of female life, endangers pregnant women to unsafe medical procedures
The present application was filed by the petitioner-accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 85, 316(2), 89 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) in which it was alleged that he was a part of an organized scheme facilitating illegal sex determination in violation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (‘PNDT Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kant Sharma, J., held that the practice of determining the sex of a fetus and taking subsequent actions based on that information was not merely a violation of law, but each instance of such nature undermined the value of female life and signaled that some lives were deemed less worthy than others due to their gender. Accordingly, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the accused and stated that his custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage, which was required not only for serving justice in the case at hand but also to determine whether he had connections with any hospital where illegal abortions were being conducted. [Bhupender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3786 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
POCSO
DELHI HIGH COURT | Friendship gives no license to rape, confine and beat mercilessly: Anticipatory bail denied in POCSO case
An application was filed by the accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 64(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) stating that he and the victim were friends. A Single Judge Bench of Swarna Kanta Sharma, J., held that even if they were friends, friendship did not give any license to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her and beat her mercilessly. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application. [Sumit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7086, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | ‘Conviction more than shocking’: POCSO conviction suspended; Bail granted after victim pleads for accused’s liberty
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking the suspension of his sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (‘POCSO’) and bail, a Division Bench of G. Narendar, CJ*, and Alok Mahra, J., suspended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and allowed the bail application. The Court held that the conviction, particularly under the POCSO was based on no evidence at all, observing that the victim had turned hostile and denied a physical relationship, the medical report showed no signs of forceful sexual assault, and the forensic evidence did not establish any link between the traces of semen found and the accused. The Court observed that the victim had fervently pleaded for the accused’s (victim’s husband) release. [Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Utt 3615, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Merely because judgment was reserved earlier, Judge cannot be forced to pronounce it if need for further assistance is felt
A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to transfer the present case from Assistant Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts to ASJ, Karkardooma Courts for pronouncement of judgement in FIR under Sections 302, 174-A, 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 because the Judge who had heard the matter was being transferred there. A Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga, J., held that no interference was warranted in the case at hand as merely because the Presiding Officer had earlier reserved the judgment, he could not be forced to pronounce the same, even if he felt the need for further assistance in the matter. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of and the Court directed to expediate disposal of the said matter. [Abuzar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6544, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court with or without reasons, will not attract the Doctrine of Merger
In the present review petition, Union of India sought review of a judgment dated 09-05-2022 that remitted a few claims of the respondent (‘Contractor’) back to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J., allowed the review petition and held that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) by the Supreme Court , with or without reasons, would not attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order impugned before it; nor would it amount to a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution unless there was a specific declaration of law made while dismissing the SLP by a reasoned order. [Abuzar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6544, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
PRISONS AND PRISONERS
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | No absolute right to choose jail or place of detention: Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife’s plea against relocation, rejected
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner prayed for an order directing the respondents not to transfer her husband, former IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt, from Palanpur District Jail to any other jail, the Single Judge Bench of Hasmukh D. Suthar, J, held that no convict has the absolute right to be detained in a particular place or jail. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application. [Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 4721, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Article 21 encompasses right to observe one’s religious duties’: Custody parole granted in UAPA case
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of custody parole for three days to attend and participate in the Fathiha ceremony of his deceased mother-in-law, a Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., held that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and to observe one’s religious duties and personal obligations. Accrordingly, the Court granted the cutody parole and stated that a prisoner, whether convicted or under-trial, continues to enjoy the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. [Shahid Nasir v. National Investigation Agency, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7107, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Proceedings against man accused of rape by his Bumble date, quashed
In a writ petition filed by a man accused of rape by his Bumble date, challenging the proceedings in a criminal case arising from the alleged incident of sexual assault, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., allowed the petition, quashing the First Information Report (‘FIR’) and the consequential proceedings. The Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue would be a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of the law. The Court observed the nuanced distinction between consensual intimacy and the grave allegation of rape, noting that the relationship in question was born of mutual volition. [Sampras Anthony v. State of Karnataka and another, Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2024, decided on 25-10-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Preventive detention order executed after 45-days delay, quashed
In the present petition, the father of the detenue challenged the detention order issued by the Divisional Commissioner for involvement in drug trafficking, alleging that the grounds of detention were vague and that the order was executed after a delay of 45 days thereby defeating its object. A Single Judge Bench of Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J., quashed the preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PIT NDPS Act’), holding that delay in executing the detention warrant without sufficient cause vitiated the order. [Adil Hussain Shah v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1015, decided on 14-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | FIR registered to ‘wreak vengeance’ can be quashed: 17-year-old attempt to murder case against Madhu Kishwar, quashed
In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR under Sections 307, 323, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) filed subsequent to a registered FIR, which resulted in conviction of the complainant-Respondent 4, for wreaking vengeance upon him. A Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., held that while FIR should ordinarily not be quashed at the inception when there were disputed questions of fact, however, it is settled law that this Court was empowered to quash the FIR when the record suggested that the same had been registered to wreak vengeance. Thus, the Court quashed the said FIR. [Prof. Madhu Kishwar v. State(NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No. 2250 of 2008, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Disclosure of passport details under RTI citing right to privacy and personal danger, ruled against
In a writ petition filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash orders rejecting his application for information related to accused’s passport and Lookout Circular (‘LOC’) details under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’), a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., dismissed the petition. The Court upheld the rejection of the RTI application for disclosure of the accused’s passport and LOC details, holding that such information is personal and its disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of the concerned person, thereby being exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. [Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20432, decided on 16-10-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Alteration of Aadhaar information is a fundamental right; UIDAI duty bound to provide basic infrastructure for Aadhaar holders
In the present petition, a 74-year-old senior citizen and widow of an ex-serviceman (petitioner), had sought a direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIDAI’) to correct her name and date of birth in the Aadhaar Card, as discrepancies in these details had prevented the transfer of her late husband’s army pension. A Single Judge Bench of G. R. Swaminathan, J., while allowing the petition, held that alteration of information in the Aadhaar Card is a statutory function discharged by the UIDAI and thus is a form of service. Therefore, the Court pointed out that every Aadhaar number holder has the fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime. [P. Pushpam v. Unique Identification Authority of India, W.P (MD) No. 29394 of 2025, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
SCS, STS, OBCS AND MINORITIES
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | OBC man forced to wash another’s feet & drink water| State asked why accused were detained under NSA without official communication via signed Court order
In the suo moto writ petition registered by the Court regarding the incident wherein a person belonging to the OBC community was allegedly forced to wash the feet of an upper caste person and drink that water by the villagers, the Division Bench of Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ., asked State why and on what basis were the accused detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (‘NSA’), without receiving the signed Court order. [Court on its Own Motion v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7713, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Order directing private schools to implement 6th & 7th Pay Commission for teachers, quashed stating judicial powers can’t be delegated to committees
A batch of letters patent appeals were filed challenging the judgment dated 17-11-2023, passed by the Single Judge, by the teachers and employees of various recognised private unaided schools in Delhi claiming for payment of salary as per the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) which is being paid to schools run by the appropriate authorities along with certain ancillary prayers such as promotion and payment of retirement benefits as per 6th and 7thCPC. A Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad, and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ., set aside a common judgment of a Single Judge which had directed the constitution of government-led committees to determine teachers’ pay arrears, fee revisions and implementation of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs). [Renu Arora v. St Margaret Senior Secondary School, LPA 762/2023, decided on 10-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Even a minor or trivial looking lapse may endanger life’: Dismissal of CRPF Constable/Water Carrier for furnishing duplicate marksheet, upheld
In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner, an Ex. Sep/Water Carrier of the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) seeking that the orders passed by the Commandant 89th Battalion, CRPF removing him from the service be reinstated as he had made an alleged bona fide mistake of furnishing a duplicate market sheet in which except roll number and the marks obtained, the rest of the particulars were true. The Division Bench of Vimal Kumar Yadav* and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., held that even a minor and trivial looking lapse could endanger the life, limbs and property of CRPF personnel, common men and country too. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the dismissal of the petitioner over furnishing duplicate marksheet. [Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6510, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Selection process vitiated by improper Interview Committee; Selective relief not permissible in tainted selection
In the present petition, the petitioners, being the successful candidates, sought judicial interference against the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments to the post of Police Patil, contending that the selection process was fair and the Tribunal’s decision was legally unsustainable due to alleged irregularities in the interview stage. The Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas*, JJ., while dismissing the petition, observed that when the entire selection process was tainted, there could not be a policy of pick and choose among candidates. The Court held that the constitution of the Interview Committee was fundamentally defective due to delegation of powers, which was impermissible, and thus the entire process was vitiated. The integrity of the selection process was found to be full of doubt, and therefore, the entire selection was required to be set aside. [Ashish v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4360 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
SPORTS
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Disregard for sanctity of place meant for sports training & practice”: Suo motu cognizance taken of railway officials partying in SECR’s boxing ring
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) petition registered regarding the incident related to railway officials partying in the boxing ring of the South East Central Railway (“SECR”), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Bibhu Datta Guru, J., expressed disdain for such behaviour and directed the SECR General Manager to submit a report after conducting an inquiry into the matter before the next date of hearing. [Suo Moto v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10208, decided on 23-10-2025]
Read more HERE