This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Dayalband Bridge Blockage Case, evidence of US-based witness, ‘Plant Head’ not juridical person, anaesthetist posing as gynaecologist case, In-law’s’ right to residence, IGNTU Professor’s illicit relationship with student, Karnataka State Law University fee hike, use of ‘ORS’ on label of food products and beverages, defamation case over sharing book extracts on Mamata Banerjee’s personal life, Sushant Rohilla case, RJD candidate Sweta Suman’s nomination in Bihar polls, Chinese Manjha Deaths Case
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Lack of timely supervision”: Collector directed to provide solution for obstruction of public passages in Dayalband Bridge Blockage Case
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported blockage of passage being used for the past 40 years by 15 families residing beneath the Dayalband Bridge, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., directed the Collector to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit indicating the steps proposed for ensuring a permanent solution to the issue of obstruction of public passages. [In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 92 of 2025, decided on 28-10-2025] Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | State directed to strictly enforce Animal Welfare Laws, sensitise officers and public
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported fatal torture of a bear in a village, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., disposed of the petition, directing that the State shall continue its vigilant efforts to prevent cruelty towards the wildlife and seriously view any such incidents of animal abuse. The Court also directed the Chief Conservator to ensure strict enforcement of the guidelines, policies, laws, or rules concerned and periodically sensitize officers and the public regarding animal welfare. [Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 45 of 2025, decided on 29-10-2025] Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Karnataka State Law University fee hike quashed
In a writ petition filed by law students under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a circular issued by the Karnataka State Law University(respondent-University), enhancing the fee payable by students, of the 5 years course as well as 3 years course, for academic year 2025-2026, a Single Judge Bench of R. Devdas, J., held that respondent-University was entitled to demand fees subject to its sanction by the statutes, regulations or ordinance which was absent in the present case. The Court, accordingly, quashed and set aside the said circular and directed the respondent-University to refund the excess fee collected pursuant to such circulation. [Pranava v. Karnataka State Law University., WP No. 23190 of 2025(EDN-RES), decided on 25-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | No interfere with FSSAI’s order banning use of term ‘ORS’ on label of food products and beverages
The present petition was filed by Dr. Reddy Laboratories (‘petitioner’), assailing the orders dated 14-10-2025, 15-10-2025 and a communication dated 23-10-2025 (‘impugned orders’), wherein the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (‘FSSAI’) had banned the use of the term Oral Rehydration Salts (‘ORS’) in the naming of any food product, fruit-based non-carbonated or ready-to-drink beverage. A Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., noted that the impugned orders had been passed by the FSSAI keeping in mind the adverse public health risk due to consumption of fruity drinks with high sugar content and imbalanced electrolytes that have been misbranded and misrepresented as ‘ORS’. The Court stated that the impugned orders were regulatory measures applicable across the food industry and thus declined to interdict with the impugned orders. [Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 16303 of 2025, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “No mechanism to ensure attendance of teachers at ground level”: State directed to ensure presence of teachers in institutions/schools for poor children
In a writ petition filed by a head teacher against her suspension due to non-attendance, the Single Judge Bench of Praveen Kumar Giri, J., directed the state to formulate a solution to ensure the presence of teachers at educational institutions/schools for poor children. [Indra Devi v. State of U.P., Writ — A No. 14242 of 2025, decided on 30-10-2025] Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Chinese Manjha Deaths Case: PIL disposed, State directed to ensure strict implementation of ban on manufacture, sale, storage, & use of manjha
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding deaths caused by Chinese synthetic thread (manjha), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru*, J., disposed of the petition, holding that no further monitoring of the matter was required as the purpose of initiating the suo motu proceeding had been substantially achieved pursuant to the directions issued from time to time. [In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 14 of 2025, decided on 03-11-2025] Read more HERE
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
DELHI HIGH COURT | No anticipatory bail to law student who harassed complainant, posted obscene content, and made derogatory posts against Judge and Police
In an application filed by the accused , a law student, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to seek anticipatory bail in FIR filed for offences under Sections 77, 87, 324(1), 351 and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., noted that the accused had been posting photographs of the complainant on social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube, using inappropriate language and had not even spared the judicial officer as well as the investigating agency, in his social media posts. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a law student, noting that he had been using obscene and derogatory language against the complainant and had been calling her at odd hours. The Court further observed that such conduct of the accused clearly indicated that, if granted anticipatory bail, he would misuse the liberty to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter. [Vivek Deep v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 3163 of 2025, decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | False promise of marriage not same as breach of promise: Anticipatory bail granted in Rape case
In an application filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR filed under Section 376 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Ravinder Dudeja, J., granted anticipatory bail and directed that in the event of petitioner’s arrest, he be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO/SHO concerned, subject to certain conditions. [Sumit v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No. 3767 of 2025, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Action taken by State only an eye-wash”: Strict solutions sought against road hooliganism
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the celebration of birthdays and the performance of stunts on roads, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., stated that, though the authorities had initiated actions against road hooliganism, they were unsatisfactory and only an eye-wash. Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (“Chief Secretary”) to file a fresh affidavit disclosing the further steps proposed by the State to curb the repetition of such incidents. [Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 21 of 2025, decided on 29-10-2025] Read more HERE
CIVIL LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Plaintiff as dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead intervenors without clear grounds for relief
In a petition filed by the petitioner, she challenged the Trial Court’s order that allowed third-party interveners to be impleaded as defendants in her civil suit, which sought injunction and compensation over land she claimed to have lawfully purchased and possessed. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra, J., while allowing the petition, observed that the stand taken by the original defendants in their written statement was identical to the plea of the third-party interveners in their application for impletion. The Court emphasised that it was neither shown nor demonstrated that the suit, as framed, could not be effectively adjudicated in their absence. [Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh, C.M.P. No.979 of 2022, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Application for consolidation of multiple suits is not maintainable under S. 10 CPC
In the present petition, where the petitioner had prayed for quashing the two impugned orders wherein his application for consolidation of four civil suits was dismissed and thereafter, allowing the consolidation of the said suits, a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., held that an application for consolidation of multiple suits could not be filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), as it is concerned only with the principle of res subjudice. The Court ordered the Trial Court to hear the matter afresh and decide the same based on the contents of the application. [Hardeep Singh v. Manohar Lal, CMPMO No. 325 of 2023, decided on 28-10-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Summons cannot be issued against ‘a post’ in criminal cases, as it is not a juridical person
In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereunder a case was made against one person and the Plant Head of the petitioner-Company for offence under Section 24 and 26 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. A Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., held that it is a settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case to face trial could not be issued against post, as it was not a juridical person and thus, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the post of ‘Plant Head’ would amount to abuse of process of law. [Tata Pigment Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3553, decided on 10-9-2025] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Prosecution against anaesthetist posing as gynaecologist for medical negligence and cheating upheld
In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceeding for a case of medical negligence and cheating, the Single-Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution was valid. The Court held that the investigating agency was not barred from conducting further investigation and filing a charge sheet even after submitting a negative final report under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and the subsequent prosecution for medical negligence was rightly initiated as it was supported by expert medical opinion, thereby complying with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. [Vinay Suren v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5451, order dated on 29-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction not “cruelty” under Section 498A
In a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 13.05.2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioners, Amit Mahajan, J., quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings as the allegations against them were vague, general, and lacked material particulars, the petitioner’s non-residence in the matrimonial home and absence of specific acts of cruelty or misappropriation ruled out any prima facie case; and continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process. [Shashi Arora v. State, W.P.(CRL) 2711/2022, decided on 03-11-2025] Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Lawyer’s plea to quash defamation case over sharing book extracts on Mamata Banerjee’s personal life rejected
In a revisional application filed by the petitioner, an advocate and politician, challenging the summons issued in a defamation case for sharing pages from a 2015 book containing personal allegations and a letter about the Chief Minister of West Bengal, which he claimed was publicly available and not subject to any ban, a Single Judge Bench of Apurba Sinha Ray, J., while dismissing the application held that republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner as the original author. The Court emphasised that every republication gives rise to a new cause of action, and the absence of action against the original publication does not shield the subsequent publisher from legal consequences. [Koustav Bagchi v. State of West Bengal, CRR 2817 of 2025, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mandatory Attendance Cannot Cost a Student’s Life: Nationwide reform directed in legal education after Sushant Rohilla case
In a petition arising from the tragic suicide of a final-year B.A. LL.B. student of Amity Law School, Delhi allegedly after prolonged mental distress stemming from institutional harassment and his detention from the sixth-semester examinations due to shortage of attendance, a division bench of Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., directed sweeping reforms in higher and legal education across India and held that mandatory attendance norms cannot be so rigid or punitive as to jeopardize a student’s mental health or lead to loss of life. [Courts on its Own Motion in Re Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University, W.P.(CRL) 793/2017, decided on 03-11-2025] Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
PATNA HIGH COURT | Relief denied to RJD candidate Sweta Suman for her nomination rejection in upcoming Bihar Polls
In a set of two writ petitions filed by Sweta Suman, candidate from Rashtriya Janata Dal (“RJD”), and Rakesh Kumar Singh, candidate from Lok Janshakti Party (“LJP”), against the rejection of their nomination, in the upcoming Bihar Elections, the Single Judge Bench of A. Abhishek Reddy, J., dismissed the petitions, reiterating that when there was an alternative and effective statutory remedy of filing an election petition, the entertainment of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution was not desirable. Especially, when there is a specific bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and a statutory remedy available under Sections 80 & Section 100(c) of the RP Act. [Sweta Suman v. Election Commission of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17396 of 2025, decided on 03-11-2025] Read more HERE
EVIDENCE LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Recording of evidence of US-based witness allowed through Video Conferencing in an Official Secrets Act case
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) assailing the order dated 6-4-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Trial Court had dismissed an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) seeking leave to examine a USA-based individual “CE” (‘witness’) as a prosecution witness through video-conferencing in a case under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (‘Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J, allowed the petition. The Court held that the objective of the provisions under Official Secrets Act mandates that proceedings must be conducted in a manner preserving the secrecy of the subject matter and such conditions would be met through a Court-controlled, view-only mode of exhibition and, where strictly necessary, sanitised certified copies can be transmitted through the Consulate. [Central Bureau of Investigation v. SH Abhishek Verma, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7113, decided on 28-10-2025] Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No implementation or execution of mutually settled agreement’: FIR in matrimonial case not quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties in the Family Court, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held the averment made in the petition itself reflected that though a settlement was entered between the parties, but there was never any implementation or execution of the same. Therefore, the Court stated that there was no ground for quashing the present FIR and disposed of the petition. [Arvind Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7266, decided on 29-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | In-law’s’ right to residence is not subordinate to that of daughter-in-law
In an appeal filed by the daughter-in-law challenging the judgment passed by the Single Judge whereby the parents-in-law, who were senior citizens, were granted a decree of mandatory injunction directing her to vacate the property while providing alternate accommodation in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan, JJ., upheld the judgement and stated that the senior citizens’ right to live peacefully with dignity in their own home could not be subordinated to the residence right of the daughter-in-law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and stated that the right of residence was meant to ensure safety and stability, not to perpetuate the occupation of a large family home at the cost of the lawful owners. [Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7280, decided on 30-10-2025] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Settling family property disputes under Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is against its object
In a petition filed by a senior citizen under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal’s (‘Appellate Tribunal’) order remanding the matter pertaining to cancellation of transfer deed executed in favor of the respondents, his grandchildren, to the Maintenance Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and that of the Tribunal’s rejecting his prayer for cancellation of the said transfer deed, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., held that this case was an example where the family property dispute was sought to be settled by invocations of provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior Citizens Act’) which was contrary to its desired object. Considering the importance of petitioner’s welfare, the Court reverted to the share of Respondent 3 and 4 to the petitioner and affirmed Respondent 5’s obligation to pay the maintenance. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition. [Chattan Singh v. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, CWP No. 12664 of 2023(O&M), decided on 13-10-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Elderly wife’s silent suffering is not consent, marriage doesn’t entitle men to unquestioned authority
In an appeal filed under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the wife, an octogenarian, challenged her husband’s acquittal by the Appellate Court, seeking restoration of the Trial Court’s conviction and six-month sentence. It was alleged that the conviction was based on a misreading of evidence and failure to consider sustained mental and emotional cruelty, A Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., while allowing the criminal appeal, held that the Appellate Court misapplied the law by assuming that the absence of a dowry demand forecloses Section 498-A IPC. The Court emphasised that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC covers wilful conduct causing grave mental injury, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the husband based on sustained cruelty such as isolation, denial of food, religious obstruction, and financial coercion, corroborated by the police compromise. [X v. Y, CRL A (MD) No. 17 of 2018, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Public ground belongs to all: Conduct of Hindu event allowed; fundamental right under Article 25 upheld
In a petition filed by a resident of N. Panchampatti Village, seeking permission to conduct Annadhanam (distribution of food) in a nearby public ground in connection with the Kumbabisekam of a local Hindu temple, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., while allowing the petition, held that a public ground should be available for use by all communities or none. The Court rejected the submission that Christians could use the ground on Easter, but Hindus could not conduct Annadhanam there. It was held that exclusion based solely on religion offends Article 15 of the Constitution. [K. Rajamani v. Joint Commissioner, W.P (MD) No.30834 of 2025, decided on 31-10-2025] Read more HERE
MEDIATION
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Once dispute is referred to mediation and settlement is reached, Trial Court cannot refuse decree
In the present petition, the petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order, which declined to pass a decree on the compromise, and sought direction to enforce a mediated settlement in a suit over easementary rights through government land, arguing that such refusal violated the mandate under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) and the Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2007 (‘Mediation Rules’). A Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., while allowing the petition held that the Trial Court’s action nullified the entire exercise undertaken under Section 89 read with Order 10 Rule 1-A CPC and failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 25 of the Mediation Rules. The Court emphasised that once the dispute was settled and a report submitted before the Court, there was no other option available than to pass a decree in accordance with the settlement. [Charulata Beura v. Ranjana Pradhan, C.M.P. No.1133 of 2024, decided on 24-10-2025] Read more HERE
PROBATION
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Denying such relief would be punishment for his family’; Probation granted to rash driving convict after 20 years
The present criminal revision was filed against the judgment dated 05-06-2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandi (‘Appellate Court’), wherein the convict’s appeal against his conviction for rash and negligent driving dated 19-03-2009, was dismissed. The convict later stated that he did not want to continue with the revision and prayed for his release on probation. A Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., while partly allowing the revision, modified the sentence and released the convict after 20 years of trial, on probation of good conduct for two years, holding that denying the relief would be a punishment for his family. [Ram Krishan v. State of H.P., Cr. Revision No. 4032 of 2013, decided on 27-10-2025] Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Relationship pre-dated her admission’; Relief granted to IGNTU Professor alleged to be in an illicit relationship with student
In a petition filed by a professor against his dismissal by the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak (‘IGNTU’) for allegedly having an illicit relationship with a student, the Single Judge Bench of Vivek Jain, J., partly allowed the petition, holding that the relationship between the parties pre-dated her admission in the IGNTU and only one of the six charges could amount to misconduct. [Rakesh Singh (Professor) v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Writ Petition No. 10864 of 2023, decided on 15-10-2025] Read more HERE