Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The President has appointed 12 Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of the Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Uttaranchal and Gauhati High Courts, following the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations dated 23 September 2026.
Mere display of the Flag with the saffron band downward, without material indicating a deliberate intention or mens rea to show disrespect, does not constitute an offence; accidental or inadvertent acts are not punishable under the provision.
Kerala High Court observed that the appointment of an Investigating Officer as Prosecutor, by itself, does not violate the right to a fair trial, particularly in view of the special statutory framework governing court-martial proceedings and Article 33 of the Constitution.
The Court also directed the Bar Council to publish the list of advocates who have since qualified AIBE and keep the District Judiciary informed, given the ramifications if similar defaults recur.
On 23 September 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended 11 Additional Judges for appointment as Permanent Judges of the Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Uttarakhand High Courts.
Kerala High Court emphasised that disputed factual allegations must be adjudicated by the jurisdictional Magistrate based on evidence and cannot be determined through a mini trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528, BNSS.
The Kerala High Court held that a mere allegation of a false promise to marry by a woman in a subsisting marriage did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS and, consequently, quashed the FIR and all further proceedings.
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that intentional application of the mouth to the private part of a child squarely falls within the ambit of Section 3(d) of the Act and constitutes penetrative sexual assault.
Describing the petition as a “speculative litigation”, the Kerala High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the Priyadarshini Bus Scheme, holding that there was no corroborative material to support the allegation that bus accidents occurred due to overcrowding. The Court, however, emphasised that passenger safety must be adequately safeguarded.
Kerala High Court set aside the rejection of a kidney donation application after finding that the authorities had relied on grounds not supported by the applicable statutory framework.
The Amicus Curiae suggested that the Centres be renamed “Institutes of Behavioural Management” or given such other appropriate designation as may help reduce the stigma associated with mental healthcare institutions.
Kerala High Court noted that the implementation of the Kerala State Palliative Care Policy for children with chronic disabilities has been inconsistent and inadequate, resulting in a lack of effective community-level support for affected families.
The case depicts the tragic plight of a minor girl, aged 17 years, who was repeatedly subjected to sexual exploitation by her own father.
Kerala High Court held that in cases involving child victims, expressions used to describe the act of sexual assault must be interpreted in the factual context rather than through strict anatomical distinctions.
The Kerala High Court held that foreign lawyers cannot examine witnesses before an Advocate Commissioner appointed for execution of a letter of request issued by a foreign court under the Hague Convention. The recording evidence before a Commissioner is a litigious function forming part of the practice of law in India and falls within an area reserved exclusively for advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Kerala HC stated that the duty of the Court is to uphold the democracy and ensure that the democratic procedures are strictly followed. However, in extraordinary situation, Court must take extraordinary decision to protect the democratic principles and people’s mandate.
The proceedings arose out of a public speech delivered by Congress MP Kumbakudi Sudhakaran on 3 August 2019. During the speech, he made remarks concerning the Judges who had rendered the judgment.
In a writ petition challenging an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing payment of balance gratuity to a retired employee, the Court held that disputes relating to gratuity and other service benefits arise out of an employer-employee relationship and do not give rise to a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Kerala High Court emphasised that the welfare of the child is paramount consideration. While courts may impose safeguards when permitting a child to be taken abroad, such conditions must be reasonable and capable of compliance. Onerous financial conditions that effectively deny the child better care and educational opportunities cannot be sustained.
In the present case, an alleged promise of marriage made was by a man who was already married. The Court examined whether such a promise could amount to “deceitful means” and the applicability of the bar contained under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.