ACQUITTAL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Charge u/s 21 POCSO Act against mother for delay in reporting sexual assault of her child by father, set aside
In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (‘victim’s mother’), assailing the orders dated 23-11-2023 and 5-12-2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Sessions Court’), vide which charges were framed against her under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that framing charge for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act against victim’s mother, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would cause grave prejudice to not just the victim’s mother who herself was a victim of domestic violence, but also to the minor victim who was dependent upon her mother for support. Accordingly, the Court set aside the charge framed against the victim’s mother for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act, by virtue of impugned orders. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Marital Rape is not recognised under IPC”; Husband’s discharge from Section 377 IPC charge, upheld
In a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the discharge of husband from the charge under Section 377 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench of Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J., reaffirmed the existing legal position that marital rape is not recognised as a criminal offence under IPC and dismissed the revision petition. Read more HERE
ADULTERY
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Woman is considered as husband’s property and its devastating consequences is well documented in Mahabharata’; Man discharged in adultery case
In a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the order dated 28-04-2018, whereby the petitioner was summoned under Section 497 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) filed by complainant (‘husband’), Neena Bansal Krishna, J., gravamen of Section 497 of IPC was that they must have indulged in the act of adultery i.e. they must have had sexual intercourse for which there was no oral or documentary evidence, but was based on a presumption which could not be considered prima facie for summoning of the petitioner. The essential ingredients of Section 497 IPC, were therefore, not made out. Thus, the Court set aside the summoning order of the petitioner and quashed the husband’s complaint case against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner. Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘Husband did not complain of adultery, S. 497 ingredients not made out’; Man convicted of adultery in false promise to marry case, acquitted
In a criminal appeal filed by a man who was convicted under Section 497 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) in a false promise to marry case, a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, J., allowed the appeal, holding that since the aggrieved party, i.e., the husband of the complainant, did not file a complaint of adultery, the ingredients of Section 497 of the IPC have not been made out against the convict. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve a dispute over unpaid bills following revised menu directions by IRCTC
An arbitration application was filed by a service provider seeking appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes regarding the interpretation of a contract for the supply of meals, logistics support, and transportation services provided by the petitioner to IRCTC, which subsequently led to claims for unpaid dues following an alteration in menu requirements imposed by IRCTC. Shampa Sarkar, J., appoints Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, Bar Association, as the sole Arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Attachment on late actor Sivaji Ganesan’s property cleared amid arbitral award execution against grandson
In an application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (‘CPC’) seeking to raise the order of attachment granted by this Court on 10-02-2025, Abdul Quddhose, J. held that the applicant was undoubtedly the absolute owner of the attached property, and that respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors had no right, title, or interest in it. Further, the Court said that when the documentary evidence placed on record clearly revealed that the applicant was the owner of the property that had been wrongfully ordered to be attached by the Court, there was no necessity to direct the parties to trial. Read more HERE
BAIL
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Bail granted in ₹37.29 Cr GST ITC fraud case involving arrest without adjudication
A petition was filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, by the petitioner who is in custody in connection with a case dated 31-03-2025 under Sections 132 (1) (c) read with 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Siliguri Darjeeling. Biswaroop Chowdhary, J. granted bail and held that the arrest of the petitioner without fresh incriminating material, without adjudication, and despite the petitioner’s cooperation was disproportionate and legally unjustified. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to Constitution, besides being in violation of human rights’; Bail granted to former DMK member Jaffer Sadiq in PMLA case
In a criminal original petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), to enlarge Jaffer Sadiq and Mohamed Saleem (‘accused persons’) on bail, the Single Judge Bench of Sunder Mohan, J. viewed that the continued incarceration of the accused persons pending trial would amount to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Taking into account the duration of custody, the stage of the trial, and the absence of any allegations of witness tampering or non-cooperation, the Court found it just and appropriate to enlarge the accused persons on bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions deemed necessary to ensure the accused persons’ presence during the course of trial and to safeguard the interests of justice. Read more HERE
COMPANY LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Explanation sought for delay in full functionality of NCLT Indore bench despite infrastructure availability
In a writ petition filed by High Court Bar Association, Indore, seeking the establishment of a permanent bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore which is technically established in January 2017, but no regular full-time members have been posted there to date, a Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ., sought an explanation from the respondents as to “why atleast two members at NCLT Delhi or NCLT Mumbai are not being posted at NCLT Bench Indore, permanently.” Read more HERE
CONVICTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Injury to witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at crime scene’; Conviction of two members of Chhota Rajan gang, upheld
While considering the appellants’ challenge to the judgment and order dated 25-4-2022 passed by the Special Judge (Exclusive Special Court) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 120-B, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the 1959 Act’); the Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale*, JJ., confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and held that observations of the trial Court regarding reliability of the eye witnesses testimony, the corroborative evidence, etc., were compelling and did not warrant any interference. The Court opined that injury to the witness was an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime because the witness would not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished, merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Read more HERE
COSTS
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Unnecessarily created controversy & demeaned the prestige of award’; 10k cost imposed on doctor and Odia litterateur, claiming his entitlement to Padma Shri
In a writ petition seeking a direction to the Union of India for clarification regarding the candidature for the “Padma Shri Award” which is in dispute between the present petitioner and the respondent 2 (Padma Shri Awardee) who has been accused of impersonating the present petitioner, the Bench of Dr. SK Panigrahi, J. said that the petitioner filed to showcase any document where his name has been figured as a “Padmashri Awardee”. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on him. Read more HERE
CONSUMER PROTECTION
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Completely erroneous to suggest vacations undermine speedy redressal of consumer disputes’; Department of Consumer Affairs directed to restore vacations in NCDRC
In a petition seeking restoration of summer and winter vacations in the calendar of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) and also that the calendar of the NCDRC be drawn up at par with the calendar of other commissions, tribunals and courts, Sachin Datta, J., disposed of the present petition with a direction to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (‘Respondent 1’) to consider the communication addressed by the President, NCDRC to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution requesting to consider restoring the practice of Summer and Winter vacations in the Commission that was existing prior to the Pandemic Vacations for lawyers and the other professionals of the judicial fraternity have been in vogue for long. Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Concern expressed over criminal behavior among students of prestigious institutions; Recommended formation of special committee to address behavioral issues
In a Criminal Original Petitions filed by college students under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge them on bail pending investigation, A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. recommended the formation of a Special Committee comprising statesmen, scholars, psychoanalysts, and representatives from the Departments of Human Resource Development, Higher Education, School Education, and the Police to identify and address behavioral issues in students. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Article 348 | ‘In case of discrepancy between English and Hindi versions of a Regulation, English version prevails’
In a writ petition challenging the rejection of candidature for the post of Middle School Teacher on the ground of securing less than 50% marks in her bachelor’s degree (B.A.), despite clearing the examination, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., found the petitioner eligible and directed the respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, except pecuniary benefits given to similarly situated candidates. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Consortium of NLUs directed to revise CLAT 2025 result list after law aspirants challenge answer key changes
A batch of petitions was filed by the petitioners arise from the judgement dated 20-12-2024 passed by the Single Judge revolving around the conduct, evaluation, and answer key disputes arising from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, administered by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) by the law aspirants (petitioners) who appeared for the examination seeking judicial intervention against certain questions and their evaluated answers in the final answer key released by the Consortium. A division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., directed the Consortium (respondent) to revise the marksheet and to re-publish/renotify the final list of selected candidates within 04 weeks from date. Read more HERE
ENERGY, POWER AND ELECTRICITY
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | MESCOM appeal against order directing not to take coercive action against Ultratech Cement vis-a-vis dues recovery/disconnection, dismissed
In the instant appeal, Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (MESCOM) challenged the interim order of the Single Judge Bench whereby the Court directed MESCOM not to take any coercive action against the respondent pursuant to the electricity dues recovery and disconnection notices impugned on the condition that the respondent deposits Rs.20,00,000/- before the Court. While considering the challenge, the Division Bench of N.V. Anjaria, CJ*., and K.V. Aravind, J., pointed out that the impugned order challenged in the appeal in an interim order, as the very kind and nature of the order, it cannot be said that the order pronounced anything final or that it has crystallized the rights of any of the parties finally. Hence the appeal was dismissed. Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Suo motu cognizance taken on Heatwave Crisis in Rajasthan; interim directions issued
While taking suo motu cognizance in light of the alarming increase in temperatures and extreme heatwave conditions being faced in the State of Rajasthan., a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., issued a set of interim directions, show cause notices, and required future action plans. Read more HERE
HOTELS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Directed Renewal of ‘Le Meridien Hotel’ licenses without Health Trade License amid ongoing legal stay
A petition was filed by CJ International Hotels Ltd. (petitioner) a company engaged in the hospitality business and operates a five-star hotel under the name “The Le Meridien being aggrieved by the refusal / inaction on the part of the respondents in renewing the Eating House License and Lodging License. Sachin Datta, J., directed respondent 1 and 2 to process the petitioners’ application for renewal of these licenses without insisting on a Health Trade Licence and further restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners until the next date of hearing. The matter was directed to be listed on 05-08-2025. Read more HERE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INTERNET, COMPUTER AND CYBER LAWS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Mere liking of a post does not attract penalty under S. 67 of IT Act or constitute a criminal offence
In an application filed to quash the charge sheet, the cognizance order, as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Srivastava, J. held that merely liking a post did not amount to publishing or transmitting the post. Consequently, such an act would not attract the provisions of Section 67 of the IT Act. The Court further concluded that no material was available to connect the accused with any objectionable post, as no offensive content was found on the accused’s Facebook or WhatsApp accounts. Accordingly, it was held that no case was made out against the accused. Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No employer can impose restriction on freedom of Trade Union members to contest elections or continue as Office Bearers
The petition was filed praying that this Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (‘the 1964 Rules’) was not applicable to the associations or trade unions whose membership was restricted to the employees working in the Department of Atomic Energy or in any Ministry or Department of the Government of India and there was no requirement for seeking prior permission of the employer to become office bearers of such association/trade union/federation. It was further prayed that this Court should hold and declare that the insistence of the Department of Atomic Energy of a restricted tenure of 2 terms or 5 years maximum to be office bearers of such service associations/unions/federations was restrictive, arbitrary and in violation of the statutory Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 and liable to be struck down. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., opined that no employer could create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a Trade Union. The Court stated that the issues like contesting elections or continuing as Office Bearers of the Trade Union, by elections or unopposed, or for canvassing someone’s candidature, were governed only by the Constitution of the Trade Union which was necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (‘the 1926 Act’). The Court dismissed the petition and stated that the number of posts available, the tenure of the post, the eligibility criteria for contesting such elections, etc., were an integral part of the Constitution of the Trade Union. Read more HERE
LIMITATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Foreign travel will not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act
The present writ petition was filed praying for directions from this Court to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 30-12-2024 passed by the District Court, Panaji, whereby the impugned order, the petitioner’s application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the 1963 Act’), for seeking condonation of delay of 73 days, was dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of Nivedit P. Mehta, J., opined that to travel abroad, be it for any reason of vacation or to visit family or whether synonymous construction of the terms was symptomatic of prejudice, was a matter of conscious decision. The Court dismissed the petition and held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and stated that if it was only a matter of a visit to one’s family or the misplacement of the certified copy, or even if both caused the delay, this Court would be in consonance with the submission that the same constituted ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the 1963 Act. Read more HERE
MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Incidents of harassment felt by the patients in settling their Final Bills is not an untold story; Petition on criminal charges against Max Hospital, dismissed
A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging common judgement and order dated 19-05-2018 vide which the criminal revision petitions filed by the three respondents separately against the order of summoning them under Sections 342, 406, 420 and 120-B, were allowed and they were discharged in complaint case. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that there is no merit in the petition and upheld the order by ASJ that no criminal offence under Section 342, 420, 406, 34 and 120-B IPC was made out. Read more HERE
MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Urgent directions issued for rape victims seeking abortion beyond 24 weeks after hospital delays care to 15-year-old
A petition was filed by a 15-year-old child, a victim of rape (petitioner) seeking termination of a pregnancy exceeding 27 weeks since the current gestational age of the foetus is beyond the permissible limits as prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., allowed the medical termination of pregnancy and issued directions to hospitals, CWCs, and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to ensure that such cases are dealt with promptly, without awaiting court orders for medical examination. Read more HERE
PARENS PATRIAE JURISDICTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Appointed daughter as legal guardian of mother with dementia under parens patriae doctrine
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the doctrine of parens patriae whereby Petitioners 1 and 2, being son and daughter respectively of Madhura Manmohan Khanvilkar, aged 78 years, were before this Court praying that Petitioner 2 be appointed as a guardian of her mother who was suffering from dementia and severe degree of cognitive impairment. The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., opined that it needed to apply the legal principles on the doctrine of parens patriae to the present case and thus held that Petitioner 2 shall be treated and accepted as a legal guardian of her mother. Read more HERE
PAROLE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Mere confinement to jail cannot reduce convict’s status to that of chattel’; Parole granted to a murder convict
In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘convict’) under Article 226 of Constitution for release on parole for four weeks in FIR under Section 302/376(2)(f) of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), wherein he is undergoing the life sentence and had already spent more than 20 years in jail, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., stated that merely because he was confined to jail, the Court stated that it did not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic fundamental human rights. It was high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrated a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court released the convict on parole for a period of four weeks. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | Defamation case filed by Congress against BRS working President and MLA, KT Rama Rao for siphoning of Rs. 25,000 Crores statement, quashed
In a petition filed for quashing of a defamation case filed against K. Taraka Rama Rao (‘KTR Rao’), Bharat Rashtra Samithi (‘BRS’) Working President and MLA, by a member of the Indian National Congress Party (‘Congress Party’) alleging that he made a statement that Rs. 25,000 Crores would be siphoned off to Congress Party by the current Chief Minister of Telangana (‘CM’), a Single Judge Bench of K. Lakshman, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned complaint, holding that the contents of the FIR and the witness statements lacked the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). Read more HERE
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘Deserves some reprieve in matter of sentence’; Sentence of man convicted under S. 377 IPC for sodomizing his friend after watching porn, reduced
In a matter where the convict was convicted under Section 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) for sodomizing his friend/neighbour after watching pornographic material, a Single Judge Bench of Rajani Dubey, J., partly allowed the appeal holding that the convict deserved some reprieve. The Court also set aside his conviction under Section 4 of POCSO, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Read more HERE
RIGHTS OF DIFFERENTLY-ABLED/DISABLED PERSONS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Three-member Committee constituted to look into the issue of non-availability of wheelchairs at the airports
In the present case, issued was raised in relation to the ordeals of senior citizens in undertaking air travel and particularly, in respect of non-availability of wheelchairs and other appropriate facilities being provided to them, either by the Civil Aviation companies or the Airport operators. The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., opined that the requirement of wheelchair might not be an issue, confined only to the senior citizens, as it would also be relevant to those passengers, who were sick/ailing or suffering disability and it might include children. The Court thus constituted a three-member Committee, which after receiving suggestions from all the stakeholders and on deliberation on the relevant issues, shall make an appropriate report to the Director General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), recommending the essential requirements and norms which need to be introduced, for effective implementation of the norms by the Civil Aviation Companies (Airlines) and the Airport Operators to enable smooth and comfortable travel of the senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and persons with lack of mobility, etc. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Employer’s obligation to pay gratuity within 30 days not contingent on employee’s written application post-exit
In a bunch of writ appeals challenging the order dated 11-10-2021 passed by the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Payment of Gratuity Act) directing the appellant-employer to pay the gratuity with interest, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., dismissed the appeals and held that employer’s statutory obligation to pay gratuity begins immediately upon the employee’s exit, and interest accrues if payment is delayed. The Court directed the appellant-employer to pay the amount of gratuity along with interest as ordered by the Controlling Authority within 30 days, if not already paid. Read more HERE
