{"id":372382,"date":"2026-01-12T18:00:53","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372382"},"modified":"2026-01-14T16:17:10","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T10:47:10","slug":"high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/","title":{"rendered":"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute, Bhagavad Gita reminds to serve common good, Anti-Superstition Law, Thiruparankundram hill festival, 2013 PIL geo-tagging of mango trees belt, Kedar Jadha alleged nepotism in membership induction, Cox & Kings’ arbitration, Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute, Tirupati Laddu Adulteration Case, Facebook Post Case, SFIO investigation case, 1997 Illegal Land Lease, Indore Water Contamination Crisis, ‘Jawed Habib’ trademarks, Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case, ‘Spectacles’ Taxable as Residuary Item<\/span><\/p>\n

ADVOCATES<\/h2>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute; asked to take it up with Bar Council of Delhi’s Special Committee<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition relating to the Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute filed by three advocates seeking a direction for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll for the Bar Council of Delhi elections, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Bansal,* J., declined to examine the merits of the petitioners’ claim for inclusion in the electoral roll and relegated the petitioners to the statutory and court-mandated remedy of approaching the Bar Council Election Committee\/Special Committee. [Umesh Kumar<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, W.P.(C) 158\/2026 with CM APPL. 818\/2026 & CM APPL. 819\/2026, Decided on 07-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/h2>\n

JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Unauthorized construction does not justify cancellation of allotment of land in lieu of acquisition on Monarch’s orders<\/span><\/p>\n

In a batch of petitions addressing the legality of a government order cancelling an allotment of land that had been granted in exchange for property acquired by the State decades earlier upon the Monarch’s orders, a Single Judge Bench of Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J., while allowing the petitions, quashed the order holding that the allotment cancellation due to unauthorised construction was improper, irrational, and unsupported by law, and that mere unauthorised construction on the land did not justify the cancellation of the allotment. [Daljit Singh Dogra<\/span> v. State (UT of J&K)<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1383<\/span><\/a>, decided on 29-12-2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Bhagavad Gita reminds to serve social stability & common good, not administrative convenience; Long due regularisation of daily wagers directed<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a bunch of forty-one petitions filed by the daily wage workers seeking directions for the Respondent-Department to regularise their services in accordance with the Governments regularisation policy, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., held that our ancient texts repeatedly place upon the sovereign an obligation to act with nyaya, anrishamsya, balanced governance and the idea of lokasangraha as discussed in the Bhagavad Gita reminds State its duty to common good and that action must serve social stability, not merely administrative convenience. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to regularise the petitioners. [Joginder<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span><\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>2025 SCC OnLine P&H 18409<\/a>, decided on 31-12-2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Immediate police action directed over derogatory book title targeting sitting Judge; suo motu criminal contempt initiated against publisher<\/span><\/p>\n

In writ petition concerning the proposed release of a book at the Chennai Book Fair, the Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J., held that the title and pictorial representation of the book were highly derogatory, abusive, and contemptuous, directly scandalising the Court and eroding public confidence in the judicial system. The Court emphasised that such publication crossed all limits and needed to be dealt with stern hands. Accordingly, the Court directed immediate police action to prevent publication and circulation and initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the publisher. [P. Naveenprasad<\/span> v. State of T. N.<\/span>, WP No. 608 of 2026, decided on 07-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delay in enacting Anti-Superstition Law called out, State directed to consider Special Cell as interim measure to address complaints<\/span><\/p>\n

In a case addressing whether the State had taken adequate steps to prevent atrocities committed in the name of black magic, sorcery, and other inhuman practices, the Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar, CJ., and Syam Kumar V.M., J., while acknowledging its limitations in issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the State to enact Anti-Superstition Law, held that the State cannot remain passive in the face of such practices. Ultimately, the Court directed that interim measures be considered, including the establishment of a Special Cell to deal with complaints of this nature, thereby demonstrating the seriousness of the State in addressing these concerns. [Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangam<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, WP(C) No. 33093 of 2022(S), decided on 6-1-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Strict compliance at Thiruparankundram hill festival directed; Only 50 participants allowed, animal sacrifice prohibited<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition concerning the conduct of religious ceremonies on Thiruparankundram Hill, a Single Judge Bench of S. Srimathy, J., held that only the Santhanakoodu Urus scheduled on 06-01-2026 could be permitted, while prohibiting the Kandhoori Mahautsav. The Court emphasised that animal sacrifice, carrying animal meat, cooking of non-vegetarian food, and carrying any non-vegetarian food shall not be permitted, and directed the authorities to strictly enforce these restrictions from the basement of the hill until the top. Consequently, interim directions were issued to maintain law and order, and the matter was posted for filing of counter affidavit. [M. Manickamoorthy<\/span> v. Collector<\/span>,<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLIne Mad 40<\/a><\/span>, decided on 02-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | “Conduct displays certain intransigence”; State pulled up for non-compliance in 2013 PIL on geo-tagging of mango trees belt in UP<\/span><\/p>\n

In a public interest litigation filed in 2013 seeking geo-tagging of the mango trees belt in UP, the Division Bench of Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Ranjan Roy, JJ., summoned the Additional Chief Secretary\/ Principal Secretary of Forest, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officer of Lucknow, and Principal Secretary of Horticulture and Food Processing due to repeated non-compliance with court orders. [Jayant Singh Tomar<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 12432 of 2013, decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Maharashtra Cricket Association elections stayed after Kedar Jadhav’s plea alleging nepotism in membership induction<\/span><\/p>\n

In writ petitions challenging the election programme of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (‘MCA’) published on 23-12-2025, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that largescale admission of about 400 new members immediately before elections raised serious questions on legality and fairness. The Court emphasised that the purity of elections requires real opportunity to stakeholders to raise objections and observed that the process adopted was prima facie arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court directed that the elections scheduled on 06-01-2026 shall not proceed without leave of the Court. [Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav<\/span> v. Maharashtra Cricket Association<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 43 of 2026, decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/h2>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions: Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging Single-Judge’s order granting an anti-arbitration injunction in an International Commercial Arbitration administered under the ICC Rules, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., affirmed the Single Judge’s order and held that — Indian courts had jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration was New Delhi. The admitted and deliberate non-disclosure by the appellant’s nominee arbitrator justified judicial intervention. The grant of an anti-arbitration injunction was warranted to prevent abuse of process and irreparable prejudice to the respondent. [MSA Global LLC<\/span> v. Engineering Projects India Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9617<\/span>,<\/span><\/a> Decided on 12-12-2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Custodia legis principle applied; return of withdrawn arbitral deposit after insolvency resolution directed<\/span><\/p>\n

In an interim application arising from a petition under Section 34<\/a> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that the amount withdrawn by the award holder pursuant to a court ordered deposit could not continue to remain with it after the corporate debtor had undergone resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (‘IBC’). Emphasising that the resolution plan had extinguished the right to receive the arbitral award, the Court directed that the withdrawn sum be brought back to the Registry, failing which the bank guarantee furnished would be invoked. Clarifying further, the Court rejected the claim for interest, holding that such pursuit entailed a separate cause of action. [Reliance Naval & Engineering Ltd.<\/span> v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5594<\/a><\/span>, decided on 17-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Declined to intervene in Cox & Kings’ arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of Farhan P. Dubash, J., held that interference with orders of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Arbitration Act’) is permissible only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity. Noting that the Tribunal had found the agreements to constitute a composite arrangement, the Court ruled that no patent illegality was disclosed. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty reserved to challenge the impugned orders under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> upon conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. [SAP India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Cox and Kings Ltd.<\/span>, Writ Petition (L) No. 39997 of 2025, decided on 23-1-2-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COMMERCIAL LAW<\/h2>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> NHAI’s Termination Notice stayed in Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition arising out of a contractual dispute between a Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), regarding execution of the Delhi—Mumbai Expressway Project, a Single-Judge Bench of Madhu Jain, J., grants interim stay on NHAI’s termination notice in Delhi—Mumbai Expressway contract dispute. [Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd<\/span>. v. NHAI<\/span>, O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 1 of 2026, Decided on 02-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL LAW<\/h2>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Father-in-law’s dowry remarks, ignoring husband’s affair, and advising to wife to tolerate violence not cruelty under Section 498A<\/a> IPC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In writ petitions challenging an FIR registered under Sections 85<\/a>, 351(2)<\/a>, 115(2)<\/a>, 3(5)<\/a>, and 352<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’), the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre and Shyam C. Chandak*, JJ., held that continuation of the FIR and consequent chargesheet against the relatives of the husband would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasised that the allegations made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, such as dowry remarks, ignoring the husband’s extramarital affair, and advising the wife to tolerate abuse, is not “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), and therefore quashed the proceedings qua the petitioners. [Amrik Singh Saini<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 4833 of 2024, decided on 09-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Court refuses ex-parte injunction in Defamation Suit of Tirupati Laddu Adulteration Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suit seeking permanent injunction against allegedly defamatory publications concerning the much-publicised issue of Tirupati Tirumala laddu adulteration, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., refused to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction without giving opportunity to the defendants to present their defence. [Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy<\/span> v. Ushodaya Enterprises (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9905<\/a><\/span>, Decided on 23-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Criminal Breach of trust and cheating cannot stand together simultaneously at cognizance stage; cognizance order set aside<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal revision petition challenging the order of cognizance, a Single Judge Bench of R.K. Pattanaik, J., held that simultaneous cognizance of offences relating to breach of trust and cheating cannot be sustained. The Court observed that the order dated 29-08-2025 was cryptic, lacked judicial application of mind, and failed to consider the materials-on-record. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Magistrate for reconsideration with a direction to pass a reasoned order in light of settled legal principles. [Priyam Pratham Sabat<\/span> v. State of Orissa<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4881<\/a><\/span>, decided on 15-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Expressing desire to end India-Pakistan hostilities and return to peace is not sedition; bail granted in Facebook Post Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail application arising out of an FIR alleging that photographs and videos uploaded on Facebook showing prohibited weapons and the flag of Pakistan, along with communications supporting Khalistan and criticising ‘Operation Sindoor’, the main question was whether the allegations made therein under Section 152<\/a> of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’), corresponding to Section 124-A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), justified continued detention of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., while releasing the accused on bail observed that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody and that desire to end India-Pakistan hostilities and a return to peace could not amount to sedition. [Abhishek<\/span> v. State of H.P.<\/span>, Cr. MP (M) No. 2763 of 2025, decided on 1-1-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Prolonged incarceration cannot entitle allowance of successive bail; bail denied in SFIO investigation case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused seeking bail in case under Sections 120-B<\/a>, 417<\/a>, 418<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 477-A<\/a> of the Penal Code 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) and Sections 147<\/a> and 447<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> (‘Companies Act’) and Sections 58-A<\/a>, 211(7)<\/a>, 227<\/a> and 628<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> (‘old Companies Act’) over continuous incarceration for 3 years and 5 months, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra*, J., held that merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he could not be held entitled to seek benefit of bail especially when his previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondent-Serious Fraud Investigation Office to expedite the trial. [Rajeev Kumar Rana<\/span> v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office<\/span>, CRM M No. 23555 of 2025, decided on 22-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Bail granted to 19-year-old accused in POCSO, IT Act case involving sharing minor girl’s nude images online<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing a bail application, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., considered whether a 19-year-old accused charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (‘POCSO Act’), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’), and the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a> (‘IT Act’), should be released on bail for sharing a girl’s nudes on social media, and held that though the allegations were serious, the accused’s age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the advanced stage of investigation justified bail. [Amal<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, Bail Appl. No. 14628 of 2025, decided on 30-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Failure to videograph recovery weakens prosecution case; Bail granted, UP DGP directed to issue SOP<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering an application filed by the applicant-accused seeking bail in case under Sections 305(2)<\/a> and 317(2)<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’) during the pendency of the trial, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., held that the fact that the police did not videograph the recovery of 40 motor cycles from the accused persons showed not only the negligence but also arbitrariness on the part of police which created doubt over the prosecution story regarding the recovery of seized articles. The Court directed the Director General of Police (‘DGP’) to issue detailed SOP for live recording of audio, video of the search or recovery of any article as well as uploading and downloading the same on and from the E-Sakshya portal. [Shadab<\/span> v. State of UP<\/span>, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40989 of 2025, decided on 5-1-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Anticipatory bail granted to nurse who was declared proclaimed offender for non-appearance due to pregnancy<\/span><\/p>\n

In an anticipatory bail application filed by a pregnant nurse declared proclaimed offender for not appearing before the Court due to pregnancy, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J., allowed the application, reiterating that there was no total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. [Monika<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u\/S 482 BNSS No. 10241 of 2025, decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Dead Witnesses, No Proof, 25-Year Delay; “Afterthought” Case Against Man Over 1997 Illegal Land Lease quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal filed by an accused in a 1997 illegal agricultural leasing case, the Single Judge Bench of Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not named in the FIR, no specific role or overt act was attributed to him, the dispute is predominantly civil and revenue in nature, the proceedings were initiated after an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than two decades, the provisions of the SC ST Act were invoked without satisfying the mandatory statutory ingredients, and the State did not take any action to cancel the alleged forged leases. [Maloo<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8098<\/a><\/span>, decided on 19-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Protection granted to 20-year-old live-in couple, young couples warned that such choices may affect life opportunities and societal acceptance<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old live-in couple seeking police protection, the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners were major and entitled to reside as per their will. However, the Court cautioned young couples that making such choices obviates the possibility of going for higher education, which drastically affects the chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life and reduces societal acceptance. [Ruchika<\/span> v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 49301 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Making minor touch private parts with sexual intent constitutes Aggravated Sexual Assault under POCSO Act<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal challenging the appellant’s conviction for the offence of committing aggravated sexual assault upon a child of tender age, aged about 3 years and 11 months, punishable under Section 10<\/a> of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO Act), a Single-Judge bench of Neena Bansal Krishna,* J., held that making a minor touch private parts with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 10<\/a> POCSO Act<\/a>, and upheld that conviction under POSCO Act. [Dharmendra Kumar<\/span> v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, CRL.A. 51\/2025, Decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Sending case to Successor Judge for re-hearing after conclusion of final arguments and reservation of judgment held contrary to right to speedy trial<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition seeking transfer of sessions case registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999<\/a> [‘MCOCA’] from the Court of the Successor Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Court of the Predecessor Judge, who is presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the limited purpose of pronouncement of judgment, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., directed the sessions case to be transferred to the Court of the Predecessor Judge. [Parvesh Mann<\/span> v State NCT of Delhi<\/span>, CRL. M. C. 9064 of 2025, decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/h2>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Foreign medical graduate allowed to treat NTA Affidavit as NEET-UG 2019 Scorecard for FMGE 2026<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition against the National Testing Agency (NTA), National Medical Council, and NBEMS, seeking appropriate directions to enable petitioner, foreign medical graduate, to appear in the examination, including a direction that the Court’s order itself be treated as her NEET-UG 2019 scorecard and that her FMGE application be processed accordingly, a Single-Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., granted urgent relief and permitted her to appear in the forthcoming Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) scheduled for January 2026, by directing that an affidavit filed by the NTA be treated as her NEET-UG 2019 scorecard. [Suhana K.N.<\/span> v. National Testing Agency<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9947<\/a><\/span>, Decided on 31-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW<\/h2>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> “Water contamination is a problem of the entire State”; interim directions issued in Indore Water Contamination Crisis<\/span><\/p>\n

In a batch of writ petitions filed regarding the Indore Water Contamination Crisis, the Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, JJ., issued interim directions and directed the Chief Secretary of the State to appear through video conferencing on the next date to apprise the Court about what actions were being taken at the State level for preventing water contamination in the entire State. [Mahesh Garg<\/span> v. State of MP<\/span>, WP No. 50641 of 2025, decided on 06-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Flood Control can’t endanger Ecology; Committee oversight directed for sand removal at Thottappally Spillway<\/p>\n

In a case revolving around the issue whether the order issued under Section 30<\/a> of the Disaster Management Act, 2005<\/a> (‘Act of 2005’), permitting removal of sand from the Thottappally Spillway for flood contol, could stand considering its ecological consequences, the Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar, CJI., and Syam Kumar V.M.*, J., held that although the District Collector indeed possessed the power to issue such directions, the implementation of flood-control measures must be balanced with ecological safeguards. Accordingly, after observing that Flood Control can’t endanger Ecology, the Court directed the constitution of a committee headed by the District Collector and including senior officers from the Departments concerned, to ensure that sand removal henceforth would only be carried out after due ecological assessment. [Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 15093<\/a><\/span>, decided on 17-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

FAMILY LAW<\/h2>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Partition suit pleading acquisition from joint family funds cannot be rejected at threshold, must go to trial<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal arose from a Single Judge’s order dated 10-09-2025, whereby an application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint in partition suit was dismissed, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., affirmed the impugned order. And held that such partition suit cannot be rejected at threshold. [Vibhuti Jauhari<\/span> v. Anita Munjal<\/span>, FAO(OS) 145\/2025, Decided on 24-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS<\/h2>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Copyright infringement action maintainable by exclusive licensee; unauthorised use of PPL’s sound recording across 94 outlets restrained<\/span><\/p>\n

In a commercial IP suit concerning infringement of copyright in sound recordings, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that Phonographic Performance Ltd. (‘PPL’), as an exclusive licensee, is entitled to maintain an action for infringement under Sections 54<\/a> and 55<\/a> of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>. The Court observed that objections regarding non-impleadment of the owner, incomplete agreements, and unstamped documents could not defeat interim relief at this stage. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from publicly performing or communicating the plaintiff’s repertoire of sound recordings without obtaining a licence. [Phonographic Performance Ltd.<\/span> v. Trinetra Venture<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9569<\/a><\/span>, decided on 24-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> “Fresh Not Frozen” deceptively similar to “Fresh N Frozen” found; rejection of trademark application upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing an appeal filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Trade Marks Act’), against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting the application for registration of the mark “Fresh Not Frozen,” a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh held that “Fresh Not Frozen” is deceptively similar to the registered mark “Fresh N Frozen” and likely to mislead consumers. The Court accordingly upheld the Registrar’s refusal and dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that liberty remained for the applicant to submit a fresh application for a different, unobjectionable mark. [Freshtohome Foods (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Registrar, Trade Mark (Chennai)<\/span>, (T) CMA (TM) No. 189 of 2023, decided on 18-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Plea to stop Parasakthi movie release amid claims of copied script rejected<\/span><\/p>\n

In interlocutory applications filed in a copyright infringement suit, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the applicant had not made out a case for interim injunction restraining release of the film “PARASAKTHI”. The Court emphasised that the relief claimed in the plaint was limited to restraining attribution of authorship, whereas the interim relief sought to prevent screening of “PARASAKTHI” travelled beyond the scope of the plaint. Observing that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the applicant, the Court dismissed the injunction application but directed the expert body to submit a comparative report for consideration at final disposal. [K.V. Rajendran<\/span> v. Sudha Kongara<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 27<\/a><\/span>, decided on 02-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Injunctive relief in Amitoje foldable display unit patent case declined<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> seeking grant of interim injunction against alleged patent infringement, the Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J, held that the defendant had raised a prima facie credible challenge to the validity of the patent in question. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. [Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, CS (COMM) No. 765 of 2024, decided on 24-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Speculation can’t decide damages; evidence-based damages in trademark infringement clarified<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing a First Appeal under Order 41, Rule 31<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, challenging the territorial jurisdiction and quantum of damages granted by the District Court, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J, and *Om Prakash Shukla, J, held that an award of damages requires a reasoned basis and evidence linking the damages to a proven injury. Accordingly, the Court held that since the District Court order was not based on any sound principle of law, it was liable to be set aside on account of lack of evidence. [B.C. Hasaram & Sons<\/span> v. Nirmala Agarwal<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8353<\/a><\/span>, decided on 12-11-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Salon’s continued use of ‘Jawed Habib’ trademarks and copyrights following expiry of franchise agreement barred; Ad-interim injunction issued<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing an interim application in a commercial IP suit concerning infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that upon expiry of the franchise agreement, the permitted use of the registered “Jawed Habib” trademark extinguished, and continued use by the defendant infringes the exclusive rights of the plaintiff. The Court accordingly granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from infringing the “Jawed Habib” registered trademarks and copyrights, and from passing off services under deceptively similar marks. [Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Ltd.<\/span> v. Kavita Janki Services (P) Ltd.<\/span>, Interim Application No. 4660 of 2025, decided on 06-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> ‘No willful disobedience or non-compliance’; Meta’s claim for additional damages rejected in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing an execution petition filed by Meta Platforms in the Facebook trade mark case, alleging willful non-compliance and conscious disobedience of a decree of permanent injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the judgment debtors had substantially complied with the said decree by removing the marks deceptively similar to Meta’s trade mark ‘FACEBOOK’. The Court further held that in the absence of any willful disobedience and due to lack of prior notice of decree to the judgment debtor before initiation of proceedings, no additional damages or costs could be claimed. [Meta Platforms Inc.<\/span> v. Noufelmalol<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9671<\/a><\/span>, decided on 24-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MOTOR ACCIDENT COMPENSATION<\/h2>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Deceased driver was qualified skilled worker in heavy vehicle driver category; compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal upheld<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the appellant, an insurance company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) on the ground of higher quantum of compensation being awarded as the deceased driver was allegedly wrongly considered for skilled labour in heavy vehicle category, a Single Judge Bench of Sudeepti Sharma*, J., held that the deceased driver’s licence clearly reflected that he was authorised to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles, thus, was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. [National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Vimal Kaur<\/span>, FAO No. 6751 of 2017, decided on 18-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/h2>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Deliberate Entering of higher marks in recruitment forms cannot be regularised under guise of ‘human error’<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a petition challenging orders passed by Respondents 3 and 4 whereby services of the petitioners were terminated for mentioning increased marks in the application form while applying for Assistant teachers, a Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan*, J., held that entering higher marks than actually obtained was not a mere clerical lapse but a deliberate act capable of altering the merit position and could not be regularised under the guise of ‘human error’. The Court further stated that public employment is a matter of public trust which beings upon the State a constitutional obligation to uphold the integrity of the selection process and any illegality could not ripen into a legal right merely because it remained unnoticed for some time. [Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary<\/span> v. State of UP<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8077<\/a><\/span>, decided on 16-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TAXATION LAW<\/h2>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Spectacles’ not broad enough to include ‘Sunglasses’; Taxable as Residuary Item<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering set of eight appeals pertaining to whether or not sunglasses could be classified as spectacles, parts and components thereof for the purpose of taxability, the Division Bench of Lisa Gill* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., held that ‘spectacles’ is not a term broad enough to include ‘sunglasses’, therefore entailing taxation of sunglasses under the entry relatable to spectacles and not under the residual entry could not be correct. [Himalaya Optical Centre Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span><\/span>,<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 18413<\/a><\/span>, decided on 8-12-2025]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Electricity duty quashed on “net charges” for breaching constitutional limits and excessive delegation<\/span><\/p>\n

In writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 2021 (‘Act of 2021’) and the Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’), the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, CJ., and Rajesh Shankar*, J., held that levy of duty on “net charges” was ultra vires the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948<\/a> (‘Act of 1948’). The Court stressed that Article 265<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> bars taxation without authority of law, found excessive delegation to the executive impermissible, and ruled that retrospective application of the 2021 Rules and arbitrary increases in duty violated Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. [Pali Hill Breweries (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, W.P.(T) No. 3228 of 2021, decided on 05-01-2026]<\/span> Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/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":67540,"featured_media":372391,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46069,45673],"tags":[96676,96675,96665,96570,96670,96673,88726,88725,96039,96674,96667,96672],"class_list":["post-372382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court-round-up","category-columns-for-roundup","tag-jawed-habib-trademarks","tag-1997-illegal-land-lease","tag-advocates-electoral-roll-dispute","tag-anti-superstition-law","tag-cox-kings-arbitration","tag-facebook-post-case","tag-high-court-judgments-this-week","tag-high-courts-weekly-roundup","tag-indore-water-contamination-crisis","tag-sfio-investigation-case","tag-thiruparankundram-hill-festival","tag-tirupati-laddu-adulteration-case"],"yoast_head":"\nHigh Courts January 2026- Cases from Week 1| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.\" \/>\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\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates' Electoral Roll dispute; and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-01-12T12:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-14T10:47:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.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=\"Shriya Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates' Electoral Roll dispute; and more\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shriya Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 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\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/\",\"name\":\"High Courts January 2026- Cases from Week 1| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-12T12:30:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-14T10:47:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0\"},\"description\":\"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"High Courts January 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute; 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\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0\",\"name\":\"Shriya Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shriya Singh\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shriyasingh\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"High Courts January 2026- Cases from Week 1| SCC Times","description":"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.","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\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates' Electoral Roll dispute; and more","og_description":"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-12T12:30:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-14T10:47:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shriya Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates' Electoral Roll dispute; and more","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shriya Singh","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/","name":"High Courts January 2026- Cases from Week 1| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-12T12:30:53+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-14T10:47:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0"},"description":"High Courts January 2026 [Week 1]: Read stories on Anti-Superstition Law; Delhi-Mumbai Expressway Contract Dispute; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; 'Jawed Habib' trademarks, etc.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"High Courts January 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/high-courts-january-2026-weekly-roundup-week-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [5-11 Jan] | Anti-Superstition Law; Indore Water Contamination Crisis; Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute; 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\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0","name":"Shriya Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shriya Singh"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shriyasingh\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/High-Courts-January-2026.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":291120,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/02\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-roundup-group-of-companies-doctrine-in-indian-jurisprudence-matter-reserved-and-momentous-same-sex-marriage-matter-dominates-the-month-of-april-2023-legal-news-legal-r\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court Constitution\/5-Judge Bench Roundup | The momentous same-sex marriage hearing dominates the month of April 2023; Big ruling on unstamped arbitration agreement","author":"Editor","date":"May 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Don\u2019t miss out on the 5-Judge Bench verdict pertaining to non-admissibility of an unstamped arbitration agreement and Constitution Bench hearing pertaining to the petitions seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage under several Acts, including the SMA, 1954, the FMA, 1969 and HMA, 1955.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court constitution bench april 2023","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-april-2023-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-april-2023-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-april-2023-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-april-2023-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371839,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/06\/mad-hc-strict-compliance-thiruparankundram-hill-festival\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":1},"title":"Madras High Court directs strict compliance at Thiruparankundram hill festival; Only 50 participants allowed, animal sacrifice prohibited","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 6, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe number of participants in the festival shall be restricted to fifty only, and the official respondents shall strictly enforce the above directions.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Thiruparankundram Hill","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Thiruparankundram-Hill.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Thiruparankundram-Hill.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Thiruparankundram-Hill.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Thiruparankundram-Hill.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372045,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/del-hc-advocates-electoral-roll-dispute-bcd-special-committee-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":2},"title":"Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute: Delhi High Court says take it up with Bar Council of Delhi’s Special Committee","author":"Ritu","date":"January 8, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"For exclusion of provisionally enrolled Advocates from Bar Council Electoral Roll, remedy lies before Bar Council Election Committee, not writ court","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Advocates' Electoral Roll dispute","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Advocates-Electoral-Roll-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Advocates-Electoral-Roll-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Advocates-Electoral-Roll-dispute.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Advocates-Electoral-Roll-dispute.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259084,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/27\/supreme-court-2021-12-months-12-stories\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court 2021: 12 Months, 12 Stories","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"JANUARY Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 The 3-Judge Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., in a 465-pages long judgment, upheld the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with directions given in exercise\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295840,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/supreme-court-june-2023-roundup-legal-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court June 2023| New Mentioning\/Listing Procedure; Rape Victim\u2019s mangal dosh; Coal India versus CCI; Bike Taxi Ban; Enrolment of Advocates; and more","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The month of June was a vacation month for the Supreme Court. The Vacation Benches, nevertheless, assembled to pass some orders in important and urgent matters. The retiring judges of the Supreme Court also delivered some important judgments. This roundup covers reports on these judgments and orders and some special\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court june 2023","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213030,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-march-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":372382,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 March 2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"TOP STORIES Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a \u2018confidential\u2019 Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed A 5-judge bench referred the\u00a0Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation Panel of Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India\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\/372382","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\/67540"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372382\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}