{"id":350160,"date":"2025-06-09T15:30:54","date_gmt":"2025-06-09T10:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350160"},"modified":"2025-06-09T15:59:39","modified_gmt":"2025-06-09T10:29:39","slug":"high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As we conclude the first week of June 2025, this High Court weekly roundup highlights significant stories, including landmark rulings on transgender parents, the bail hearing of Shamishta Panoli, the summon order for Rahul Gandhi, Sadhguru’s personality rights case, and more.<\/p>\n

ANIMAL SLAUGHTER<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Animal slaughter permitted during Bakri Eid on 7-6-2025 and the Urus from 8-6-2025 to 12-6-2025 at Vishalgad Dargah<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., permitted animal slaughter during the festival of Bakri Eid on 7-6-2025 and the Urus from 8-6-2025 to 12-6-2025, and the same was applicable to the applicant and its devotees. The present interim application was filed by the applicant, Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad to seek permission for animal slaughter during the festival of Bakri Eid and the Urus. Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Arbitrator appointed in dispute between State and OASYS Cybernetics for violation of S. 12(5) of A&C Act<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the unilateral appointment of Director, Department of Digital Technologies and Governance, Himachal Pradesh (\u2018Director of DTG\u2019), as the sole arbitrator by the State, the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan*<\/span> and Sushil Kukreja, JJ., allowed the petition holding that the statutory bar under Section 12(5)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (\u2018the Act\u2019) would squarely be applicable as the Director of DTG could not be held to be an independent and impartial arbitrator because he could be a consultant or an advisor of the State. [Oasys Cybernetics (P) Ltd. v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1812<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARMED FORCES<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Deplorable approach adopted by Union towards its own army personnel\u2019; Pleas against rounding off disability element of disability pension, rejected<\/p>\n

In a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union against the Armed Forces Tribunal (\u2018AFT\u2019) that rounded off the disability element of the disability pension of respondents to 50 percent, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and H.S. Grewal, JJ., rejected the petitions, holding that the binding precedents by the Supreme Court did not restrict the payment of arrears for only three years before the filing of the application. The Court deplored the Union\u2019s approach towards its own former servicemen, non-compliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions, and undertaking unnecessary litigation. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARREST<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Arrest of Anchor Group of Company\u2019s director, Hemang Jadavji Shah, declared as illegal and unnecessary; Immediate release ordered<\/p>\n

The present petition was filed seeking to issue a direction\/writ of certiorari and\/or any other similar writ, order, and direction of like nature, to declare the petitioner\u2019s arrest dated 18-5-2025 as illegal and unnecessary and order his immediate release in a case with Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai (\u2018EOW\u2019). The Division Judge Bench of Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ., held that there was breach of requirements under Section 48<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (\u2018BNSS, 2023\u2019), and the detention of the petitioner in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within stipulated time of 24 hours was completely illegal and infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 22(2)<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court declared that the petitioner\u2019s arrest dated 18-5-2025 was illegal and ordered his immediate release. [Hemang Jadavji Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2145<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT |<\/span> \u2018Attempt to disrupt communal harmony and reinstate Mughal Order\u2019; Bail denied under UAPA<\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal filed, by the appellant an enrolled advocate and volunteer associated with a Human Rights Organization, under Section 21<\/a> of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008<\/a>, challenging the order passed by Special Judge, NIA Cases, Bhopal rejecting his regular bail application, a Division Bench of Vivek Agarwal*<\/span> and Devnarayan Mishra, JJ., while acknowledging the alleged attempt to disrupt Communal Harmony and reinstate Mughal Order, held that, at this stage, there is no sufficient basis for interference in the trial process and refused to grant bail. [Wasid Khan v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4008<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bail granted to film director falsely accused of rape; Trend of lodging false complaints of sexual offences, highlighted<\/p>\n

In a bail application filed by the applicant (\u2018accused\u2019) seeking regular bail in the FIR registered for offences under Section 376<\/a>\/354-C<\/a>\/313<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/506<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), Girish Kathpalia, J., granted bail to a film director falsely accused of rape and stated that this was yet another case, reflecting the recent trend of lodging false complaints of sexual offences. Thus, considering the circumstances, the Court stated that it had no reason to deprive liberty to the accused any further. Therefore, the Court directed the accused to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the area Magistrate or the Duty Magistrate. [Sanoj Kumar Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3786]<\/a> Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Now a mother of 25-days old child\u2019; Anticipatory bail granted to woman alleged to have assaulted and killed a biker<\/p>\n

In a case wherein, a pregnant woman and her husband were alleged to have assaulted a biker, who later succumbed to injuries in his brain, a Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., after considering the nature of the allegations against the applicant, who was now a mother of 25 days old child, opined that the custodial interrogation of the application was not required. The Court thus, allowed the application and granted her pre-arrest bail. [Anam Ahmed Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2144<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Anticipatory bail plea of Police officer accused of assaulting an Army Colonel, rejected<\/p>\n

In an anticipatory bail application filed by a Police Officer, in an First Information Report (\u2018FIR\u2019) registered under Sections 109<\/a>, 115(2)<\/a>, 117(2)<\/a>, 126<\/a>, 190<\/a>, 191<\/a>, 351(2)<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (\u2018BNS\u2019) in a Colonel\u2019s assault case, a single judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara*, J., dismissed the application, citing prima facie involvement, gross misconduct, horrific nature of crime, crafty behaviour and cruelty on part of the accused by mercilessly beating the complainant and his son, causing both simple and grievous injuries. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bail and Police Protection granted in FIR against law student over alleged blasphemous post<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by Shamishta Panoli (petitioner), a law student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune, seeking judicial intervention against the registration of FIR(s) and the arrest carried out pursuant to them alleging procedural impropriety, violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, and interim bail. Raja Basu Chowdhury. J., granted her bail as offences alleged were bailable or punishable with less than seven years and that the petitioner was a young student with no risk of tampering with evidence. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bail granted to a man allegedly involved in vehicle registration scam by forging documents<\/span><\/p>\n

In a case wherein, the applicant was accused of being involved in vehicle registration scam by forging documents in State of Maharashtra, a Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., stated that the applicant\u2019s involvement was that of a dealer, and the two accused persons he allegedly was in touch with, were already released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, by order dated 16-12-2024. The Court thus allowed the present application and granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CHEATING<\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cNo rare & exceptional case showing that investigation was tainted\u201d; Transfer of cheating case against dentists by Kenyan woman to CBI, refused<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a dentist seeking transfer of a cheating case filed against her and her husband by a Kenyan woman who was allegedly cheated for dental treatment, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that no rare and exceptional case was made out to show that the investigation was tainted thus, transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (\u2018CBI\u2019) was not warranted. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bail granted to woman alleged to have cheated of Rs. 2.45 crores; Highlighted well-being of her children and non-violent nature of crime<\/p>\n

In a case wherein the applicant, a mother of two children, along with three other accused persons, was alleged to have cheated the complainants of Rs 2.45 crore, a Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., considering the well-being of the applicant\u2019s minor children and that the offence alleged was a non-violent crime, granted bail to the woman. The applicant along with her husband and two other co-accused persons, was involved in cheating various complainants of Rs 2.45 crore, by gaining their trust and forging documents. The applicant was arrested on 4-4-2025 and was in police custody till 11-4-2025 and since then, had been in judicial custody. Thereafter, the applicant filed a bail application, but the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik vide order dated 7-5-2025. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

COMPENSATION<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Rs. 53 Lakhs awarded to woman rendered disabled in 19-year-old childhood road accident case; Said \u201chuman suffering can\u2019t be measured in money\u201d<\/p>\n

In a motor accident claims appeal where the woman was rendered disabled in 19-year-old childhood road accident case, a Single Judge Bench of C. Pratheep Kumar enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant by revising the notional income used for assessing loss of disability, considering the severity of the girl\u2019s condition. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to just and reasonable compensation within the present proceedings, on par with any other road traffic accident victim. Consequently, the appellant was held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 53,88,750\/-. [Sumisha v. Shaji P.Y., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3456<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CORRUPTION<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Stay of CBI proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Land-for-Job corruption case, refused<\/p>\n

A petition was filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav (petitioner) under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> read with Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a>, praying for quashing of FIR dated 18-05-2022, along with charge sheets dated 07-10-2022, 01-07-2023, and 07-06-2024, as well as cognizance orders dated 27-02-2023, 22-09-2023, and 25-02-2025 and all other consequential orders passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>. Ravinder Dudeja, J., dismissed the application for stay of proceedings and held that there were no compelling reasons warranting judicial interference at the interim stage, especially in light of the pending adjudication before the Supreme Court on the core issue of applicability of Section 17-A PC Act. [Lalu Prasad Yadav v. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3862<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, can withdraw Financial Powers of Sarpanch facing corruption charges<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, challenging the order dated 17-01-2024 by which the petitioner\u2019s financial powers as Sarpanch were withdrawn due to taking bribery and the same was conferred upon the Panchayat Coordinator, a single-judge bench of Vishal Dhagat, J., affirmed the impugned order and held that the \u201cChief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat have power to issue orders withdrawing financial powers of Sarpanch who is found to be involved in a corruption case.\u201d [Manghu Baiga v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4009<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Comprehensive directives directed after steps in to protect rights of youth in Shelter Homes and abandoned care leavers<\/p>\n

In an important case on rights of youth in Shelter Homes originating from a letter dated 20-05-2025 written by children residing at Balika Grah, Alwar, raising serious grievances regarding non-receipt of grant-in-aid and alleged exploitation by certain officials, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., deeply disturbed by the plight of these children, recognised the larger systemic issues faced by care leavers in India and treated the letter as a public interest litigation. The Court issued a series of comprehensive and structural directives, forming a framework to address the challenges faced by Care Leavers. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CRUELTY<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Accused husband permitted under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> to travel to USA to resume his job<\/p>\n

The present petition was filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> read with Section 528<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, challenging the order dated 14-5-2025 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in a case, wherein the application dated 23-4-2025 filed by the petitioner-husband seeking permission to travel to the USA to resume his job, was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., in view of the settlement arrived between the petitioner and Respondent 2-wife, set aside the order dated 14-5-2025 and granted permission to the petitioner to travel to the USA, subject to abiding by the terms and conditions agreed on between the parties and the directions imposed by this Court. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | False 498-A complaint and acquittal amount to \u2018mental Cruelty\u2019: Divorce affirmed after 29 years of separation<\/span><\/p>\n

An appeal was filed by the appellant (wife) against respondent (husband) challenging the decree of divorce dated 08-05-2006, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, under Sections 13(1)(ia)<\/a> and 13(1)(ib)<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending that the Trial Court erred in concluding that she had treated the respondent with cruelty. A divison bench of Ravinath Tilhari and Challa Gunaranjan, JJ., upheld the divorce in view of false implication in criminal case amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Hard labour cannot be overlooked\u2019; NIOS directed to declare Class 12 result on or before 17 June to facilitate counselling for JEE-mains qualified students<\/p>\n

In the present case, the common grievance by the petitioners in the batch of petitions was that since their result for Senior Secondary School had not yet been declared by National Institute of Open Schooling (\u2018NIOS\u2019), they were not being allowed to participate in the counselling process by Joint Admission Council (\u2018JAC\u2019). However, no such embargo was imposed by Joint Seat Allocation Authority (\u2018JoSAA\u2019). Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | DPS Dwarka Controversy | Public shaming of students for financial default is mental harassment, harms child\u2019s psychological well-being<\/p>\n

In an application alleging non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 16-4-2025 passed by the Court in the Delhi Public School, Dwarka (DPS Dwarka) controversy, Sachin Datta, J., expressed its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner, i.e., DPS Dwarka in engaging \u201cbouncers\u201d to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises. The Court stated that public shaming\/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ENTERTAINMENT, AMUSEMENT, LEISURE AND SPORTS<\/p>\n

MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Directed holding of open trials for state-level selections in boxing events<\/p>\n

In a Civil Writ Petition filed by an Army Boxer seeking clarifications regarding the consideration of athletes for selection in boxing events, a single judge Bench of H. S. Thangkhiew, ACJ*<\/span>. directed holding of open trials for state-level selection in any boxing events. The petitioner, an army boxer of substantial standing, after obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) and permission, approached the respondents to be considered for trials and the selection process to represent the State of Meghalaya. However, he was denied the same without affording any reason. [Wanbuddien Syngkli v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 514<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ENVIRONMENT LAW<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | PIL to interfere in Sewage Treatment Plant site selection policy decision, refused<\/p>\n

In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by practicing advocates at the Gram Nyayalaya, Khokharia, Jodhpur, seeking cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted for setting up a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and for relocation of the STP from its proposed site adjacent to the Gram Nyayalaya, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah<\/span>,* JJ., dismissed the writ petition with direction to the State authorities to ensure strict compliance with environmental and operational safety standards. Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1956<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Return of \u2018Stridhan\u2019 must be decided within matrimonial proceedings, not via separate application under Section 27 HMA<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by Family Court, wherein, the husband was directed to pay Rs.10,54,364\/- in lieu of returning \u2018stridhan\u2019 articles, the division bench of Arindam Sinha*<\/span> and Avnish Saxena,JJ. held that the distribution of properties of the parties, including the return of stridhan, must be determined within the framework of proceedings instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (\u2018HMA\u2019), and not by way of a separate and independent application filed under Section 27 HMA. Hence, the proceedings under Section 27 HMA cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree. [Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3190<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

INSOLVENCY AND BANKCRUPTCY<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | RBI\u2019s NBFC registration cancellation of Shabros Finvest set aside; Reconsideration directed<\/p>\n

A petition was filed by Shabros Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) seeking disposal of the impugned order dated 26-11-2018 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority on the similar terms as the judgment passed by this court in Vishesh Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, W.P.(C) 4321\/2021, decided on 12-12-2024. A division bench of Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia, JJ., allowed the present petition, sets aside the impugned order dated 26-11-2018 passed by the RBI as well as the order dated 08-11-2019 passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the RBI to consider the present petition as a representation and pass a fresh order. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Freedom of speech not a license to defame individuals or Indian Army\u2019; Summoning order against Rahul Gandhi in Army defamation case, upheld<\/p>\n

In an application filed by Rahul Gandhi under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) challenging the validity of the Trial Court\u2019s order summoning him to face trial for the offence under Section 500<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) for defaming Indian Army with his alleged remarks about thrashing of soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh, a Single Judge Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi J., dismissed the application on lack of merits. The Court viewed that the Trial Court had correctly decided to summon Rahul Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500<\/a> IPC<\/a> after satisfying that a prima facie case existed against him. The Court further held that there was no illegality or procedural infirmity in the summoning order that would warrant the exercise of its inherent powers. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim protection granted for Sadhguru\u2019s personality rights; Misuse of his rights through AI restrains<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction for passing off, violation of common law rights, misappropriation of personality, publicity rights etc., Saurabh Banerjee<\/span>, J.*, stated that the systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the infringed content was being updated\/ uploaded on the \u2018rogue websites\u2019 showed the extent of the violation of Sadhguru\u2019s rights in real time. Therefore, the Court stated that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case in their favour and if an ex parte ad interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, the Court passed interim injunction in the plaintiffs\u2019 favour. [Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3804<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | IndiaMART permitted to use \u2018PUMA\u2019 mark as a search option in drop-down menu; directs to take down infringing listings on notice<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the appellant, i.e., IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. assailing the judgment dated 3-1-2024, passed by Single Judge, the Division Judge Bench of Vibhu Bakhru* and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., set aside the impugned order to the extent that it restrained IndiaMART from providing an option to use the \u2018PUMA\u2019 mark for the description of any goods as a search option in the drop-down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of the registration on the IndiaMART platform. However, we sustain the direction that IndiaMART should forthwith take down all infringing listings containing the PUMA marks on the same being brought to its notice. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

JUDICIARY<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cDeemed confirmation concept has long been discarded\u201d: Plea of Civil Judge who was dismissed after probation due to \u2018doubtful integrity\u2019, rejected<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a Civil Judge against his dismissal from service upon completion of his probation, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*<\/span>, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the petition, holding that the concept of deemed would not apply to the present case since it would create an anomalous situation where the probationer despite being unfit for confirmation, would be deemed confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity whose service record was tainted with adverse remarks. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

JUVENILES<\/p>\n

PATNA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Punishment of juvenile in conflict with law is not the purpose of juvenile justice\u2019; Order of conviction against juvenile under Arms Act<\/a>, set aside<\/p>\n

In a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Sessions Court dismissing an appeal from the conviction order of the Juvenile Justice Board (\u2018JJ Board\u2019) under Sections 25(1-B)(a)<\/a> and 26<\/a> read with 35<\/a> of the Arms Act 1959<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Kumar, J., set aside the order of conviction and sentencing observing that children are the future of the society and the aim of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act), 2000<\/a> (\u2018JJ Act\u2019) is not to punish the juvenile but reform and rehabilitate them. Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

MAINTAINANCE<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | EMIs, personal loans, or insurance premiums cannot justify evasion of maintenance under Section 24<\/a> Hindu Marriage Act<\/a><\/p>\n

An appeal was filed under Section 19<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 19-04-2025 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>, directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of \u20b915,000 split as \u20b98,000 for the respondent-wife and \u20b97,000 for their minor son. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that the findings of the Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties, and are in accordance with the binding guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903<\/a>. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANACY<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Directives on hospital lapses mandating timely MTP in rape victim cases issued<\/p>\n

A petition was filed by Minor S through her mother (petitioner) under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, seeking urgent directions for the medical termination of pregnancy following repeated refusals by AIIMS, Delhi, to conduct necessary medical procedures without a court order, despite express consent from the Child Welfare Committee and the victim\u2019s guardian. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., directed AIIMS to immediately carry out the medical termination of pregnancy, having found critical lapses in medical protocol, conflicting gestational assessments, and unwarranted procedural hurdles such as the insistence on identity proof and ossification testing during pregnancy. [S v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3863<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PCPNDT ACT<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Doctors in 19-year-old PCPNDT case due to procedural lapse acquitted<\/p>\n

In a revision petition filed by a genetic clinic and its Directors\/doctors against their conviction under Sections 4(3) read with Rule 9, 5(1)(b) and 23 of the Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (\u2018the Act\u2019) as well as the judgment modifying their sentence, a Single Judge Bench of Jasjit Singh Bedi, J., allowed the petition, holding that the complaint ought to have been filed by a three-member committee as per Section 17(3)(b) which was not done in the present prenatal procedural lapse case, thus, the complaint was not maintainable and the subsequent proceedings and conviction stood vitiated. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act<\/p>\n

In separate criminal miscellaneous petitions involving common question of law as to \u2018whether the procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act, 2012<\/a>, which requires that questions during examination be routed through the Special Court, continues to apply once the victim attains the age of majority during the pendency of trial,\u2019 a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., quashed the orders passed by the Special Courts in all three petitions and held that \u201cthe procedural mechanisms of Section 33(2) must be confined to those who continue to remain children at the time of their testimony. Once that status changes, so must the procedure.\u201d [Jasaram Pander v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2508<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | FIR quashed in POCSO case considering victim\u2019s privacy and future prospects including marriage; Accused directed to do community service<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner (\u2018accused\u2019) under Section 528<\/a> of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> seeking to quash FIR registered under Sections 354<\/a>\/354C<\/a>\/506<\/a>\/509<\/a>\/384<\/a>\/34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> and Section 12<\/a> of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a>, Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that the victim had unequivocally expressed her desire to move on from this chapter, and had articulated social and emotional burden that the continued pendency of this criminal case might place upon her. Thus, the Court quashed the present FIR and directed the accused to do community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital for a month. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Revenue Court\u2019s order quashed due to procedural lapse; Called for establishing Administrative Judicial Academy for legal training in Revenue Courts<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging the decree in a revenue suit seeking partition and permanent injunction, without framing issues and without recording evidence from both sides, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., and quashed both Sub Divisional Officer (SDO)\u2019s and the appellate court\u2019s orders and held that SDO\u2019s action in decreeing a contested suit without framing issues or recording evidence is patently contrary to settled principles of civil jurisprudence. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS\/FIR<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Possibility of accused exploiting victim\u2019s fear can\u2019t be ruled out\u2019; FIRs alleging rape on false promise of marriage, refused to be quashed<\/p>\n

In a writ petition seeking quashment of three FIRs alleging rape on false promise of marriage, a Single-Judge bench of Kuldeep Mathur, J., refused to quash the FIR and held that FIRs disclose prima facie material supporting allegations of rape and deceit, particularly involving false promises of marriage, therefore should not be quashed prematurely. Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

REGISTRATION ACTS AND RULES<\/p>\n

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT<\/span> | S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act declared as unconstitutional<\/p>\n

In a Civil Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908<\/a>, as introduced by the State of Bihar vide the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991, which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand and the consequential notification issued thereunder, the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., and Rajesh Shankar, J. relying upon the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on similar issue in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77<\/a>, declared the said amendment as unconstitutional Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Transfer order with assignment to teach unqualified subject is \u2018malice in law\u2019 and violates Article 21-A<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging the Single-judge\u2019s order which affirmed the transfer order posting the appellant to teach English as valid when she is not qualified to teach that subject under applicable rules, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah*<\/span>, JJ., quashed the impugned order and held that administrative convenience cannot override qualifications prescribed by law. The Court further held that imposing such a transfer poses a risk of adverse consequences for the appellant and also violates students\u2019 right under Article 21-A<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> by depriving them of a qualified teacher. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Withdrawal of premature retirement allowed before effective date\u2019; Government Degree College\u2019s Principal reinstated under CCS Rules<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by the Principal of Government Degree College, Solan, against the impugned order wherein her request for withdrawal of premature retirement was rejected, a Single Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J.*<\/span>, allowed the petition, reiterating that the appointing authority had no discretion to refuse withdrawal if the request was made before lapse of the notice period and before the retirement had taken effect. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin the service from the date she had tendered the request for withdrawal of resignation. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Selection done in slipshod manner\u2019; Haryana\u2019s socio-economic bonus marks in civil service exams held unconstitutional<\/p>\n

In a batch of over a dozen writ petitions filed by civil service candidates against the impugned advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) granting a socio-economic criteria granting bonus marks to certain class of persons, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., allowed the petitions, holding that the notification dated 11-06-2019 (\u2018the notification\u2019) which created the criteria for granting such bonus marks was violative of Articles 14<\/a>, 15<\/a> and 16<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and thus, the advertisement based on such notification was also unconstitutional. The Court also provided several directions concerning the appointments of new and old candidates. Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

STREET VENDORS<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Elites look down upon those doing small business\u2019; Plea against street vendors in Manimajra markets rejected, Rs 50,000 cost imposed<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by presidents of Manimajra Vyapar Mandal and Manimajra Residential Welfare Association (\u2018the Associations\u2019) against the street vendors and hawkers who were vending at the Manimajra local markets, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the present petition, prima facie, appeared to be motivated to use the legal forum for evicting and destabilising the local business of the street vendors. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 each on the associations to be deposited with the Municipal Corporation for the welfare of street vendors and their families. [Malkit Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2577<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

TAX<\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cNo equity in taxation law\u201d: Tax exemption under S. 14 HP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act refused to man who bought auctioned vehicles<\/p>\n

In a civil writ petition filed seeking the transfer of registration of certain vehicles bought by the petitioner in an auction due to the pendency of taxes, a Single Judge Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan* and Sushil Kukreja, JJ., rejected the petition holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of tax exemption under Section 14(3)<\/a> of the HP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972<\/a> (\u2018the Act\u2019) as no previous intimation was given by previous owner\/department having possession of the motor vehicles or the petitioner as per Section 14(2). Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2019<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Transgender Couple allowed to be listed as Gender-Neutral \u201cParents\u201d on Birth Certificate<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a transgender couple seeking issuance of a birth certificate for their child, which mentioned them as the parents and not as mother and father, a Single Judge Bench of Ziyad Rahman A.A., J., allowed the petition holding that the concerns raised by the petitioners were valid as the issuance of the certificate in the prescribed form would cause serious difficulties to the child in life ahead. The Court reiterated that the law must evolve in tandem with new concepts of human life and societal changes. \u201cWhen a statutory provision on a particular point is not in line with such societal changes, the Court must intervene to address the genuine grievances of the parties concerned.\u201d Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":350165,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46069,45673],"tags":[36404,83244,83251,27374,83247,83252,82808,30518,58508,83246,83253,14141,23204,83039,83250,46562,83249,83245,83248,4071,83254],"class_list":["post-350160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court-round-up","category-columns-for-roundup","tag-animal-slaughter","tag-bakra-eid","tag-ccs-rules","tag-disability-pension","tag-dps-dwarka-controversy","tag-haryana-civil-service-exams","tag-hemang-jadavji-shah","tag-indiamart","tag-jee-mains","tag-lalu-prasad-yadavs-land-for-job-case","tag-manimajra","tag-pcpndt-act","tag-pocso","tag-rahul-gandhi-army-defamation-case","tag-sadhguru-personality-rights","tag-sewage-treatment-plant","tag-shabros-finvest","tag-shamishta-panoli","tag-state-level-boxing","tag-stridhan","tag-trangender-couple-as-parents"],"yoast_head":"\nJune 2025: High Court Weekly Roundup | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Explore the High Court Weekly Roundup with key rulings on animal slaughter, personality rights, and prominent legal cases.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Court Weekly Roundup for June 2025: Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli's Bail; Rahul Gandhi's summoning; Sadhguru's Personality Rights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-09T10:00:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-09T10:29:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/\",\"name\":\"June 2025: High Court Weekly Roundup | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-09T10:00:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-09T10:29:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Explore the High Court Weekly Roundup with key rulings on animal slaughter, personality rights, and prominent legal cases.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"High Court Weekly Roundup\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"June 2025: High Court Weekly Roundup | SCC Times","description":"Explore the High Court Weekly Roundup with key rulings on animal slaughter, personality rights, and prominent legal cases.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more","og_description":"High Court Weekly Roundup for June 2025: Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli's Bail; Rahul Gandhi's summoning; Sadhguru's Personality Rights","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-09T10:00:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-09T10:29:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/","name":"June 2025: High Court Weekly Roundup | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-09T10:00:54+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-09T10:29:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Explore the High Court Weekly Roundup with key rulings on animal slaughter, personality rights, and prominent legal cases.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"High Court Weekly Roundup"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/high-court-weekly-roundup-june-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"HIGH COURT JUNE 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Transgender Parents; Shamishta Panoli\u2019s Bail; Rahul Gandhi\u2019s summon order; Sadhguru\u2019s Personality Rights; and more"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/High-Court-Weekly-Roundup.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":349952,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/06\/calcutta-hc-bail-police-protection-sharmishtha-panoli-blasphemy-case-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":0},"title":"Calcutta High Court Grants Bail and Police Protection in FIR Against Law Student Over Alleged Blasphemous Post","author":"Arunima","date":"June 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court observed that the impugned order appears to have been issued in oversight of the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":349373,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/dhc-grants-interim-protection-to-sadhgurus-personality-rights-restrains-misuse-through-ai\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":1},"title":"Delhi HC grants interim protection to Sadhguru\u2019s personality rights; restrains misuse of his rights through AI","author":"Arushi","date":"June 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court observed that many accounts on YouTube channels and Meta\u2019s social media platforms are using modern day technology to modify the voice, image, likeness etc. of Sadhguru to garner more views and subscribers to piggyback on his name and reputation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/23\/modi-surname-defamation-case-rahul-gandhi-sentenced-bailed-by-surat-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":2},"title":"[\u2018Modi Surname\u2019 Remark] Surat Court sentences Rahul Gandhi in 2019 defamation case, grants bail and suspends 2-year sentence for 30 days","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi had made headlines during 2019 political campaign with his 'Modi surname' remark allegedly connecting the dots between Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rahul Gandhi","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-848.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-848.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-848.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-848.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295801,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/02\/weekly-legal-roundup-high-courts-in-june-2023-legal-news-updates-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":3},"title":"HIGH COURT JUNE 2023 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on Adipurush; Transgender Welfare Board; Witchcraft murder case; Copyright infringement of KGF Songs and more","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week","rel":"","context":"In "High Court Round Up"","block_context":{"text":"High Court Round Up","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/high-court-round-up\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"high courts weekly roundup june","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/high-courts-weekly-roundup-june.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/high-courts-weekly-roundup-june.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/high-courts-weekly-roundup-june.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/high-courts-weekly-roundup-june.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":323429,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/02\/bengaluru-court-rahul-gandhi-personally-appear-june-7-defamation-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":4},"title":"Bengaluru Court directs Rahul Gandhi to personally appear on June 7 without fail in BJP Defamation case","author":"Editor","date":"June 2, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar were granted bail by the Court in the matter, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000 each.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rahul Gandhi appear Bengaluru Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Rahul-Gandhi-appear-Bengaluru-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Rahul-Gandhi-appear-Bengaluru-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Rahul-Gandhi-appear-Bengaluru-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Rahul-Gandhi-appear-Bengaluru-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216302,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-june-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":350160,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 June 2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"TOP STORIES Can\u2019t grant extension of time for counselling merely because graduate doctors don\u2019t want to do PG in non\u00adclinical subjects: SC If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a Pandora\u2019s box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350160\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/350165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}