A Delhi court has permitted forensic examination of the survivor’s voice sample in the Unnao rape case on an application filed by the accused.

The defence argued that the survivor had denied that the voice in certain recorded conversations belonged to her, even though the recordings were relied upon during the trial. It claimed the audio contained statements suggesting she had left her home voluntarily and was therefore crucial objective evidence.

Allowing the plea, the Court directed the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) to compare the survivor’s voice sample with the existing audio and video recordings already on record.

It clarified that the examination is meant to assist the adjudicatory process and that the evidentiary value of the forensic report will be considered at a later stage.

The Delhi High Court held that there is no presumption of a wife’s earning capacity at the interim maintenance stage without prima facie proof.

The case arose from a 2021 marriage under Muslim rites, where the wife sought maintenance as a housewife with no independent income or property.

The husband claimed she earned ₹10,000 as a nursery teacher but produced no proof.

The Court assessed the husband’s income using minimum wages and enhanced interim maintenance from ₹2,500 to ₹3,500 per month, payable from the filing date of the Section 125 CrPC application, with adjustment of amounts already paid.

[Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood@Sonu]

The Chennai North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Leela Palace, Udaipur, liable for breach of guest privacy, terming it a clear deficiency in hospitality services.

A Chennai-based lawyer had booked a grand room for ₹55,500 on a non-refundable basis. During her stay on January 27, 2025, a housekeeping staff member entered the occupied room using a master key without consent while the guest and her husband were in the washroom.

Rejecting the hotel’s defence of internal SOPs and lack of malicious intent, the Commission held the service to be fundamentally defective.

It directed refund of ₹55,500 with 9% interest, ₹10,000 as litigation costs, and ₹10 lakh as compensation.

[SN v. Schloss Udaipur Pvt. Ltd.]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) summoned senior Forest and Horticulture officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), for failing to comply with long-pending directions on scientific geo-tagging of trees in the mango belt.

Citing “apathy” and “intransigence” in a 2013 PIL, the Court imposed an additional ₹25,000 cost (total ₹40,000) for non-filing of affidavits and non-compliance. 

Officials have been directed to appear in person on January 13, 2026, with costs to be deposited before the next hearing.

The Supreme Court set aside a Telangana High Court order transferring a criminal case on alleged bias, holding that a judge cannot be presumed biased merely because a litigant’s relative is a police constable or court staff.

The Court ruled that such factors, without concrete evidence, are inconsequential and cannot justify transfer.

Emphasising fairness and access to justice, it restored the case to the original court and clarified that apprehensions must be addressed through legal safeguards, not presumptions.

[Prasanna Kasini v. The State of Telangana]

The Karnataka High Court has sought the State government’s response to a PIL challenging the alleged illegal demolition of homes at Kogilu Layout, Yelahanka, without proper notice.

While declining interim relief, the Court recorded the State’s submission that three rehabilitation sites have been earmarked with basic amenities for affected residents.

The Bench directed the State to file a detailed reply within a week.

The matter will be heard next on January 22.

[Zaiba Tabassum & Ors. v. State of Karnataka]

Kalpetta district judiciary in Kerala has become India’s first fully paperless judicial district, with all courts functioning digitally from filing to final orders.

Developed entirely in-house by the Kerala High Court, the system integrates AI-assisted case summaries, voice-to-text deposition recording, digital annotations, and secure e-signatures.

CJI Surya Kant termed it a step towards green jurisprudence and wider access to justice, while Justice Vikram Nath called it a scalable national model.

The Supreme Court has held that exoneration of a public servant in departmental disciplinary proceedings does not, by itself, justify quashing of criminal prosecution, especially in corruption and trap cases.

The Court clarified that disciplinary enquiries and criminal trials operate independently, with different objectives and standards of proof. 

Procedural lapses leading to exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot pre-empt a criminal trial where evidence can be fully examined. 

The ruling reinforces accountability in corruption cases despite parallel service proceedings.

[The Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District v. Chandrashekar & Anr.]

The Gujarat High Court held that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is strictly supervisory and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of findings.

Justice JC Doshi clarified that the High Court can interfere only in cases of manifest legal or jurisdictional error that is apparent on the record.

The provision is not a second appeal and is meant to ensure quick finality of rent disputes by limiting interference with concurrent factual findings.

[Shantaben v. Vinubhai Gandabhai Patel]

The Rajasthan High Court held that bail is the norm for juveniles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, even when they are tried as adults for heinous offences.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that the gravity of the offence or the age of the child cannot be grounds to deny bail.

Bail may be refused only if release exposes the child to danger, associates them with criminals, or defeats rehabilitative justice under the Act.

[Us@us v. State of Rajasthan]

The Supreme Court set aside a mid-process change in recruitment criteria for BPSC Assistant Engineers, reiterating that rules cannot be altered after the selection process has begun.

The State had retrospectively amended rules to add weightage for contractual experience after the written exam and provisional merit list.

Overturning the Patna High Court ruling, the Court held such changes to be impermissible and directed recruitment to be finalized strictly under the unamended 2019 Rules, based solely on written exam marks.

[Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors]

The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of DNA matching does not by itself weaken a rape prosecution if the surrounding circumstances reasonably explain it.

Dismissing an appeal against conviction for repeated rape of a minor, the Court noted that the prosecutrix had stated the accused used a condom, and there was a significant delay between the incident and medical examination.

These factors explained why the DNA report was inconclusive.

Upholding the conviction, the Court stressed that consistent and credible testimony of the minor victim cannot be discredited solely due to DNA mismatch.

[Ram Kuber v. State]

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal where borrowers claimed the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.

The borrowers had availed three loans from Vazhoor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., secured by equitable mortgage over their property, and later defaulted in repayment, leading to arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and ex parte awards.

The Court held that OTS benefits are discretionary, not enforceable rights, and cannot be claimed by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

It found that asking the bank to extend further OTS concessions would amount to rewriting contractual terms. The appeal was dismissed.

[Raju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

Not entirely, because no law in India outrightly bans tenants from keeping pets.

Courts and animal welfare authorities have clarified that blanket restrictions on pet ownership by landlords or housing societies are legally questionable, as keeping pets forms part of the right to life and companionship under Article 21.

However, landlords may impose reasonable conditions to prevent property damage, nuisance, or hygiene issues.

Absolute bans solely based on pet ownership, without valid justification, can be challenged under law.