The Supreme Court expressed concern over the sharp rise in matrimonial litigation and urged parties to make sincere efforts at reconciliation before initiating civil or criminal proceedings.

The Court observed that minor matrimonial disputes are increasingly escalating into multiple cases, burdening courts and damaging any chance of settlement. 

Emphasising pre-litigation mediation and counselling, the Court cautioned against rushing to police or courts, noting that arrests often become a point of no return. 

[Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar]

The Allahabad High Court held that a student’s right to appear in examinations forms part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Granting relief to a first-year B.Sc. student who was barred from her semester exam due to a university’s technical lapse, the Court ruled that a student’s future cannot be jeopardised for administrative failures when she is not at fault.

The Court directed the University to conduct a special examination and declare the result within a reasonable time, stressing that educational authorities must act promptly to rectify technical errors affecting students’ academic careers.

[Shreya Pandey v. State of UP]

The Delhi High Court held that it is conscious of the working conditions of court staff and is taking administrative steps to address concerns arising from excessive workload.

The Court observed that an audit of vacancies, cadre structure, and workload distribution has been ordered following the unfortunate suicide of a court staffer, citing work pressure.

It noted that steps are being taken to rationalise staffing requirements and fill vacant posts within the shortest possible time. The Court further observed that permissible relief is being extended to the deceased staffer’s family.

It recorded that proceedings for unnatural death are already underway and disposed of the petition without issuing further directions.

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR for rape registered against an advocate, holding that the complaint bore a strong imprint of manipulation.

The Court observed that the allegations disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults and could not be treated as rape on the ground of an alleged false promise of marriage.

It noted that official records showed the complainant continued to project herself as the wife of her former husband and had children from previous relationships, undermining the credibility of her claims. 

The Court held that the criminal process cannot be used to convert private discord into public prosecution or as a tool of harassment, and quashed the proceedings.

The Karnataka High Court has granted interim relief to Café Coffee Day (CCD) by deferring FEMA adjudication proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.

Justice BM Shyam Prasad ordered that the personal hearing scheduled for January 30, 2026, be kept in abeyance until the matter is heard next on February 23. 

The proceedings arise from alleged FEMA violations linked to foreign direct investment received by Coffee Day Enterprises Limited in 2010. CCD argued that the mandatory reasons for initiating an inquiry were neither properly recorded nor communicated, rendering the proceedings legally flawed.

The Court has sought the ED’s response and will examine the matter in detail at the next hearing.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed constituting an expert committee to examine issues relating to the definition of the Aravalli hills and environmental concerns arising from mining activities.

The Court sought the names of eminent environmentalists and forest experts from the Amicus Curiae and law officers. It clarified that the committee would function under the direct control and supervision of the Court.

The move follows the Court’s decision to recall its earlier order approving a restrictive definition of the Aravallis, amid concerns that it could permit large-scale mining.

Interim directions restraining illegal mining will continue to operate.

The Rajasthan High Court pulled up the Jaisalmer police for publicly shaming arrested persons by photographing them in degrading conditions and circulating the images on social media and in newspapers.

The Court held that an arrest does not strip an individual of the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It ordered the immediate removal of such photographs within 24 hours and sought responses from senior police officials on safeguards to prevent recurrence.

The Court observed that publicly portraying accused persons as criminals before trial violates the presumption of innocence and causes irreversible harm to reputation.

[Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court denied bail to former Travancore Devaswom Board President A Padmakumar, ex-TDB official B Murari Babu, and jeweller Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

The Court considered allegations relating to the misappropriation of nearly four kilograms of gold from temple idols and door frames after repair works.

It noted the prosecution’s claim that irregularities by TDB officials enabled the prime accused to access temple gold.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and the ongoing investigation by a Special Investigation Team.

[Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala]

The Supreme Court deferred by another month the bail plea of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, where he has remained in custody for nearly seven years without trial.

The Court proposed fixing timelines to complete procedural steps, including calling trial records, framing charges, and scheduling hearings, before taking up the bail plea again.

Gadling argued that prolonged incarceration violated his liberty and cited repeated trial delays.

The Court stated it would also examine whether adequate judicial arrangements exist to conclude the trial expeditiously. The matter is listed after one month.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to ban Bangladesh from international cricket tournaments over alleged violence against the Hindu community.

The Court held that such reliefs involved foreign policy and international relations, which fall exclusively within the domain of the executive.

It observed that no writ could be issued to bodies like the BCCI, ICC, or foreign cricket boards, nor could the Court dictate how India conducts its diplomatic affairs.

Terming the plea frivolous and non-maintainable, the Bench warned of imposing costs, following which the petitioner withdrew the petition.

[Devyani Singh v. UOI & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed further investigation against RTI activist Manik Goyal and three journalists booked over social media posts questioning the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s helicopter.

The Court observed that the State cannot initiate criminal action merely because questions are raised against a public office holder.

It held that criticism, satire, and reporting are protected under freedom of speech and expression, and criminal liability cannot be imposed simply because a public authority feels offended.

The Court stayed proceedings till January 23, noting that continuation would prejudice the petitioners’ rights.

[Manik Goyal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

The Ministry of Power has indicated that the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2025, is likely to be introduced in the upcoming Budget session of Parliament.

The proposed amendments seek to bring reforms in the power sector, particularly to improve the financial health of power distribution companies (discoms). The government has said the Bill aims to curb recurring losses by enforcing financial discipline and ensuring timely payments.

While power distribution utilities reported collective profits in FY25 after several loss-making years, many discoms remain financially stressed. The amendments are also intended to promote cooperative federalism, competition and efficiency.

However, power sector unions have opposed the proposals, citing concerns over possible privatisation.

The Delhi High Court has amended its Rules to clarify that, in criminal proceedings, the term “parties” will include the complainant and/or the victim.

The amendment, notified in the Delhi Gazette on January 19, modifies Part C of Chapter 16, Volume IV of the Delhi High Court Rules & Orders.

The clarification aligns the term with the definition of “victim” under Section 2(y) of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

The Delhi High Court has held that English alphabets cannot be claimed exclusively under trademark law and declined interim protection to the mark “A TO Z” used by a pharmaceutical company. 

The ruling arose from a suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Prevego Healthcare over the use of “AZ” for multivitamin products.

The Court held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole and that “A TO Z” merely conveys comprehensiveness and lacks distinctiveness. It also noted Alkem’s failure to disclose earlier withdrawn or opposed trademark applications, disentitling it to equitable relief.

The interim injunction was accordingly vacated.

[Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd.]