This week’s roundup travels across High Courts to cover important legal developments and cases such as bail denied in Kavin Honour Killing Case, implementation of Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System, erection of Natham Kanavai War Memorial Stupa, officials held accountable in Thiruparankundram hill lamp case, pollution from Kanjurmarg dumping ground, Saharanpur Violence Case, and more.
ARBITRATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Disputes arising after execution of settlement agreement remain arbitrable
While hearing an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes arising out of a settlement agreement, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J, held that the mere execution of a settlement agreement does not render subsequent disputes between the parties non-arbitrable. The Court clarified that a settlement does not extinguish the arbitration agreement; rather, the arbitration clause survives to adjudicate disputes that emerge from the settlement. [Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8864, decided on 4-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Arbitral award modified
While hearing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., stated that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil since its jurisdiction is confined by the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the Arbitrator had exceeded jurisdiction by lifting the corporate veil and fastening liability on an entity not party to the agreement, which is impermissible under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’). Accordingly, the Court modified the award and directed repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 11-12-2015 till the date of actual payment, while setting aside the portion of the award granting damages of Rs 3.52 Crores. [Sugesan Transport (P) Ltd. v. E.C. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10996, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ARMED FORCES
DELHI HIGH COURT | CAPF Examination Rule mandating strict cut-off period for issuance of OBC-NCL certificate declared invalid
In a writ petition filed by candidates appearing for the Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) (‘CAPF(AC)’) examination, belonging to the category of Other Backward Class- Non-Creamy Layer (‘OBC-NCL’) challenging cancellation of their candidature, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J and *Om Prakash Shukla, J held that Rule 21.2 of the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules (‘impugned rule’), mandating submission of OBC-NCL certificates issued is a prescribed time frame was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court directed the Union Public Service Commission (‘respondents’) to consider the candidature of the aggrieved petitioners. [Raghvendra Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9058, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Court of Inquiry under BSF Rules not a disciplinary proceeding but merely a fact-finding exercise
In a matter revolving around whether departmental proceedings could be pursued simultaneously with a pending criminal trial based on the same allegations, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar* and Sanjay Parihar, JJ., held that there was no statutory bar to allow both proceedings to continue side by side, and that what has been ordered was only a Court of Inquiry under Rule 173 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (‘BSF Rules’), which was a fact-finding exercise and not a disciplinary proceeding. [Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India, LPA No. 275 of 2025, decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
AVIATION LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | AAI cannot unilaterally shut Airport multiplex; National Policy Review by Centre, ordered
In the writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned letter and direct Airport Authority of India (AAI) to permit continuation of multiplex operations under the Development Agreement and the Sub-License Deed, a single-Judge bench of M. Dhandapani, J., held that there is no prohibition under Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (AAI) for establishment of multiplexes in the airport premises. The Court directed the AAI to refer the multiplex closure issue to the Centre and continued status quo pending policy. [PVR INOX Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 12074, Decided on 09-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
KERALA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to Ex-Devaswom Board Officials in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case
In a batch of bail applications where the petitioners, including former Administrative Officers, Executive Officers and the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board, are accused of large-scale misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala Temple, a Single-Judge bench of A. Badharudeen, J., refused to grant bail. [K.S. Baiju v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 14361 Of 2025, Decided on 19-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Magistrate not bound by Investigating Officer’s opinion: Bail application of police officials accused of abduction and extortion, rejected
In a bail application filed under criminal appellate jurisdiction, the applicants sought release in connection with an FIR registered at Coastal Police Station, Daman, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, wherein a Single Judge Bench of Neela Gokhale, J., held that the Magistrate is not bound by the analysis of the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet and can independently take cognizance of non-bailable offences. Observing that prima facie offences of abduction and extortion were made out, the Court rejected the bail application. [Ramdev Singh Jadeja v. UT of Daman & Diu, Bail Application No. 4519 of 2025, decided on 16-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘In Honour Killing cases, bail is a carefully guarded exception’; Bail rejected in Kavin Honour Killing Case
In a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, challenging the trial court’s order of bail dismissal in Kavin Honour Killing case, a single-judge bench of K. Murali Shankar, J., upheld the trial court’s order and refused to grant bail. [Saravanan v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11661, Decided on 03-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
DELHI HIGH COURT | Know why execution of decree against Simplex Infrastructures passed in Dubai Court was directed
In a petition filed under Section 44-A read with Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for enforcement of a foreign decree passed in a Dubai Court, a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Yadav, J., directed its execution after considering that Dubai is a reciprocating territory and there has been due application of mind in passing the decree. [Trinity Engineering Services LLC v. Simplex Infrastructures, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8901, decided on 6-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Continued online circulation of arrest reports after discharge violates Right to Dignity; Interim de-indexing against Media House, upheld
In an appeal challenging the trial court’s order allowing respondent-plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Single-Judge bench of Chandrasekharan Sudha,* J., upheld the interim de-indexing of impugned articles and held that continued online circulation of arrest reports after plaintiff’s discharge violates his Right to Dignity. [IE Online Media Services (P) Ltd. v. Nitin Bhatnagar, FAO 346/2025, Decided on 18-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “More than 16 years have passed but this project is still slow in progress”: Read why directions were issued for implementation of Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System
In a bail application, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., took note of the poor enforcement of the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (“ICJS”) and issued detailed directions for its implementation. [Ratvar Singh v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. — 41021 of 2025, decided on 18-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Village Temple on Grama-Natham land is a Public Religious Institution; Directions regulating its administration, upheld
In an appeal challenging the court’s order, dated 30-11-2022, restraining the appellant from interfering with the “day-to-day activities of the Village Temple on Grama-Natham land and allowed the respondent-writ petitioner to administer Arulmigu Vembiamman Thirukovil for the time being, a Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and P. Dhanabal, JJ., upheld the impugned order and directed Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to act to maintain peace and proper administration in that locality. [R. Thirumurugan v. R. Thennarasu, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 12104, Decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | No permission required to erect Natham Kanavai War Memorial Stupa on private land
In a writ petition filed by petitioner, Managing Trustee of Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust, challenging the Tahsildar’s proceedings, which refused permission to erect a memorial stupa commemorating the “Natham Kanavai War” on his patta land, a Single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., quashed the impugned memo and held that the petitioner is at liberty to erect the memorial stupa for the ‘Natham Kanavai War’ on his patta land. [Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13934, Decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Law and order no ground for disobedience of judicial orders; Officials held accountable for ignoring directions in Thiruparankundram hill lamp case
While hearing contempt petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of judicial orders passed in writ petitions, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that citing law and order concerns as a justification for non-compliance with binding judicial directions is impermissible. The Court observed that unless stayed or set aside by a higher forum, court orders must be obeyed, and treating law and order as a ground for flouting such directions would be unacceptable, amounting to a breakdown of constitutional machinery. [Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar, Contempt Petition (MD) No. 3594 of 2025 in W.P. (MD) No. 32317 of 2025, decided on 17-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Appointment of Collector as Administrator of Shani Shingnapur Temple Trust, quashed
In a writ petition filed by the elected trustees of Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust, Shingnapur, challenging the Government Resolution appointing the Collector as “Administrator” of the Trust and the subsequent appointment of Management Committee by the Collector, a Division Bench Vibha Kankanwadi* and Hiten S. Venegavkar JJ., held the Collector’s appointment as Administrator, to be illegal and ultra vires to the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto equally unsustainable in law. [Bhagwat Sopan Bankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5076, Decided on 12-12-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Authorities slammed over unhygienic conditions at Chottanikkara Bhagavathi Temple; Ordered cleanliness audit under Suchitwa Mission
In a suo motu proceedings based on a complaint dated 24-04-2025 alleging maladministration and corruption at the Chottanikkara Bhagavathi Temple, a Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V.* and K.V. Jayakumar, JJ., orders comprehensive cleanliness audit and corrective measures in response to alarming sanitation failures at Chottanikkara Temple. [Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13934, Decided on 10-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DEBT, FINANCIAL AND MONETARY LAWS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Investor Protected: Depository held liable for broker’s misuse of Power of Attorney in fraudulent share transfers
While deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., upheld the award which had directed payment of Rs 86 Lakh, being the value of lost shares, along with 9 per cent simple interest per annum. The Court observed that the acts were also performed in the capacity of Depository Participant and therefore liability under Section 16 of the Depositories Act, 1996 (‘Depositories Act’) was attracted, making the Depository responsible to indemnify the beneficial owner. [Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4816, decided on 01-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere recovery of tainted money insufficient for conviction under PC Act: Officials acquitted of all charges
In a case dealing with the issue whether the prosecution had successfully proved the foundational elements of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), along with conspiracy under Section 120-B Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Nivedita P. Mehta, J., held that the prosecution had failed to build a chain of circumstances to establish the essential ingredients for the charges and each link in that chain was weakened by procedural irregularity, documentary incompleteness, or forensic insufficiency. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused officials of all charges. [Ravindra v. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4833, decided on 02-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DISABLED PERSONS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Law must bend toward inclusion of specially-abled citizen’: Retrospective promotions of visually impaired Forest Department employee, directed
In a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of order passed by Respondent 1 whereby the claim of the petitioner, a visually impaired employee of the Forest Department, was dismissed without due consideration of State Government’s issued relaxation regarding promotional eligibility, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., held that the law must bend toward inclusion, and the specially-abled citizen should not be left standing outside the doors of opportunity to which the Constitution has already given a key. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and stated that the petitioner was entitled to promotion against the 3 per cent reservation quota for physically handicapped and should be accorded notional promotion to the post of Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013. [Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 15411, decided on 1-12-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Right to privacy of students protected: Inclusion of refusal clause in APAAR ID Scheme, directed
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (‘APAAR’) initiative citing violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., held that while the initiative is professed to be voluntary, the absence of an option to refuse consent in the model consent form effectively rendered it mandatory in nature. Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to amend the consent form to include an opt out/refusal of consent clause, thereby safeguarding the fundamental right to privacy. [Rohit Anand Das v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4535, decided on 12-12-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Article 21 violation flagged due to pollution from Kanjurmarg dumping ground; Directed urgent intervention
In bunch of public interest litigations (PIL) raising serious concerns regarding odour, smoke, pollution and severe health hazards emanating from the dumping activities carried on Kanjurmarg dumping ground by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), a Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ., directed the committee to implement urgent mitigating measures to prevent pollution as a large number of citizens continue to be affected by pollution from the dumping ground. [Vanashakti v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, Public Interest Litigation No. 63 of 2019, Decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Gifts received from parental home, Stridhan not source of income to deny maintenance claim
In an appeal filed by the husband against the order dated 8-1-2025 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Sessions Judge had upheld the order of maintenance granted by the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J, held that gifts received by the wife from her parents and relatives, including stridhan, could not be construed as a source of income for the purposes of a claim of maintenance. Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of grant of maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife. [X v. Y., CRL. REV. P. No. 51 of 2025, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Possibility of larger controversy cannot be ruled out’; Relief denied to MLA Chandrashekhar Azad in Saharanpur Violence Case
In a batch of four applications filed by Chandrashekhar Azad, a politician and Member of Legislative Assembly (“MLA”), seeking quashing of FIRs filed against him in Saharanpur Violence Case, the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., dismissed the applications, holding that the subsequent FIRs filed related to the case had different incidents and ambits, thus they were permissible. The Court also held that since the trials were midway, it was not desirable to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the proceedings. [Chandrashekhar v. State of U.P., Application u/S 528 BNSS No. 39434 of 2025, decided on 17-12-2025]
Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Right to housing is a fundamental right’: Rejection of jhuggi dwellers’ claims under Small Flats Scheme, 2006, set aside
In a petition filed by jhuggi dwellers challenging Chandigarh Housing Board’s rejection to their claim seeking allotment of flats under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 (‘2006 Scheme’), the Division Bench of Anupinder Singh Grewal* and Mandeep Pannu, JJ., held that it is trite that the right to housing is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and thus, allowed the petition. [Rajesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 16493, decided on 8-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | “It was not committed at a place within public view”: 1994’s conviction for caste abuse, set aside
In an appeal filed by the appellant seeking reversal of Trial Court’s finding whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’) and Section 323 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., reiterated that the textual and purposive interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act mandated that the alleged act should occur at a place “within public view”. Accordingly, the Court set aside the said order. [Brij Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1994, decided on 5-12-2025]
Read more HERE
INCOME TAX
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act must reflect application of mind: Revenue’s appeal dismissed
While deciding an appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) challenging the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153-C of the Act, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., dismissed the appeal after holding that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was vitiated by non-application of mind. The Court noted that the approval dated 06-08-2010 did not reflect even a minimum application of mind and had been granted mechanically. Therefore, in the absence of a valid approval, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were incompetent. [CIT v. Vrushali Sanjay Shinde, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4960, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Trade Mark registration or Online Listing alone doesn’t confer Territorial Jurisdiction in infringement suit
In appeal challenging Single Judge’s order allowing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), whereby the plaint, in a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., affirmed the impugned judgment and held that the Single Judge’ Judgment that this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit cannot be faulted. [Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025, Decided on 03-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | S. 159(5) provide no shield against infringement of well-known trademark; Use of “FEDEX” as corporate name restrained
In an interim application seeking injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘FEDEX’ or any deceptively similar mark as part of their corporate names, trade names, domain names or in any other manner whatsoever, a Single-Judge bench of R.I. Chagla, J., allowed the interim application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. [Federal Express Corpn. v. Fedex Securities (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5056, Decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Intra-court appeal not maintainable in patent disputes; Commercial Courts Act overrides Letters Patent of High Court
In an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the rejection of a patent application, the Division Bench comprising S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., held that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a judgment passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Patents Act’), since appeals in commercial disputes are governed exclusively by Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act’). Observing that the Commercial Courts Act expressly overrides the Letters Patent, the Court upheld the Registry’s objection and rejected the appeal. [ITALFARMACO SPA v. Controller of Patents & Designs, OSA (CAD) SR. No. 72443 of 2025, decided on 12-12-2025]
Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | EPF Contributions on Actual Wages for ‘International Workers’, upheld; Fixed-Term Expat Employment no ground for exemption
In a petition challenging paragraph 83 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (‘scheme’), which mandates provident fund contributions in respect of ‘international workers’, the Division Bench of *Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J, held that the contractual or fixed-term nature of expatriate employment did not dilute entitlement to social security benefits during the period of employment in India. Accordingly, the Court upheld the validity of para 83 of the scheme and dismissed the writ petition. [Spice Jet Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8271, decided on 4-11-2025]
Read more HERE
LAND LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Status quo ordered in Bareilly Banquet Hall Demolition case
In a writ petition, the petitioner sought order to restrain the respondent authorities from carrying out further demolition of his residential structures situated in Bareilly, the Division Bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ., granted the petitioners liberty to file applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (‘UP Act’), along with a compounding application for such portions of the construction as are compoundable under the Rules framed under the said Act. Thus, the Court ordered a status quo to be maintained until the disposal of the said applications. [Farhat Jahan v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8071, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Divorced Muslim woman not entitled to maintenance under S. 125 CrPC without proof of Halala-compliant remarriage
In a revision challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a Single-Judge bench of Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J., set aside the impugned order and held that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be claimed by a divorce by a Muslim women based on alleged remarriage or cohabitation unless she proves — lawful dissolution of the intervening marriage, compliance with the doctrine of Nikah Halala, and valid solemnisation of remarriage. [V.P Abdurahiman v. C. Safiya, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13608, Decided on 05-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Altruistic kidney donation can’t be stalled on mere apprehension of commercial transaction
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondent Hospital-Based Authorization Committee (HBAC) and Manipal Hospital to grant approval for donation of one of her kidneys altruistically to any deserving patient, without seeking or receiving any compensation of any nature, a Single-Judge bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the donation and issued the directions. [ABC v. Chairperson, Hospital Based Authorization Committee, Writ Petition No. 29161 of 2025, Decided on 25-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “₹771 Crores spent, yet basic maternity healthcare missing in hilly and tribal Maharashtra”: Suo motu cognizance taken
Shocked by the content of the news report published on 08-12-2025 in Daily Divya Marathi, which highlighted the deplorable condition of maternity and healthcare services available to pregnant women residing in hilly and tribal areas of Maharashtra, a Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ., took cognisance of the case on its own motion. [Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra, Suo Motu PIL Stamp No. 36990 of 2025, Decided on 08-12-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTCE AND PROCEDURE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Merely passing one-line order without reasoning is not proper’; Appeal allowed against one-liner acquittal by Appellate Court
In a criminal appeal filed by the State against the Appellate Court’s order acquitting the convict under Section 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the Single Judge Bench of Rajendra Kumar Vani, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was untenable as merely passing a one-line order without reasoning was improper on the part of Appellate Court. [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babulal Malviya, Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2016, decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/FIR
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Plea to quash FIR against lawyer accused of portraying Judicial Magistrate to overawe police officers, dismissed
In a petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) filed by the petitioner, a budding lawyer, seeking quashing of FIR where he was accused of violating traffic rules and obstructing the police officers from discharging official duty, a Single Judge Bench of Surya Partap Singh, J., referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC Online SC 315 (‘Neeharika Infrastructure case’) and held that the petition was not liable to be quashed. [Parkash Singh Marwah v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 16384, decided on 9-12-2025]
Read more HERE
SEDITION
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda” is a challenge to sovereignty and integrity of India
In a bail application filed by the accused-applicant in case where he was allegedly involved in an unlawful assembly which raised objectionable slogans, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., held that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” was a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India as the same incited the people for arm rebellion, therefore, this act would not only be punishable under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) but also against the basic tenets of Islam. Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application. [Rihan v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43604 of 2025, decided on 17-12-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Temporary employment or technical break in Service not ground to deny maternity benefits
In a case revolving around whether a woman employed on a temporary basis, with technical breaks in service, could be denied maternity leave benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (‘MB Act’), the Division Bench of Ajit B. Kadethankar and M.S. Karnik*, JJ., held that such denial was arbitrary and unjust, recognizing that the MB Act extended the protection even to women working on daily wages or temporary posts. The Court, while allowing the petition, directed that maternity benefits be granted and that failure to disburse the amount within four weeks would attract interest at 9% per annum. [Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 15521 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Arbitrary delay in filling veterinary posts in Lakshadweep, flagged; Directions issued
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) instituted highlighting the issue of inadequate and insufficient veterinary care in the Lakshadweep Island, a Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar, C.J. and Ziyad Rahman A.A., J., issued necessary directions vis-a-vis filling the vacant veterinary posts and for inviting applications from local NGOs for livestock care, thereby ensuring that veterinary care does not suffer due to bureaucratic delays. [C.P Abdul Kabeer v. UT of Lakshadweep, WP(PIL) NO. 64 OF 2025(S), Decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
TAX LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | License fee on sky-signs and hoardings held to be regulatory fee, not tax, despite GST
While deciding a batch of petitions challenging the levy of license fees on sky-signs and hoardings under Section 244 read with Section 386(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (‘MMC Act’), the Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., held that the levy constituted a regulatory fee and not a tax. The Court observed that despite the deletion of Entry 55 of List II by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016 (‘Constitutional Amendment Act’) and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) regime, municipal corporations remain competent to impose such fees for regulation and control of sky-signs and hoardings. [Manoj Madhav Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5058, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE