The Jharkhand High Court held that the actions of the Jharkhand University of Technology and AICTE prima facie reflected corrupt practices that endangered the academic future of students.

The Court observed that despite AICTE granting approval for the 2025–26 academic session, JUT failed to grant affiliation and register 60 diploma students, effectively trapping them without examination rights.

It noted that students were admitted under valid approval but left in an uncertain position.

The Court directed the CBI to investigate how the students were trapped and identify the role played by the authorities, and ordered submission of a sealed report within two weeks.

[Dhanbad Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from the recruitment process of armed forces.

The Court observed that the statutory exclusion under the Administrative Tribunals Act applies only to persons who are already members of the armed forces and not to candidates at the recruitment stage.

It held that disputes relating to service conditions of serving personnel are barred, but challenges raised by unsuccessful or aggrieved candidates before appointment are maintainable.

The Court further observed that the Railway Protection Force is recognised as a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service, thereby bringing recruitment-related disputes within CAT’s jurisdiction under law.

[UOI v. Kapil Gurjar]

The Delhi High Court rejected the election petition filed by AAP leader Somnath Bharti challenging the election of BJP MLA Satish Upadhyay from the Malviya Nagar constituency in the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections.

The Court held that the petition did not warrant interference with the declared election result.

It observed that the allegations of corrupt practices and non-disclosure of a pending criminal complaint were insufficient to invalidate the election at the threshold stage. 

The Court dismissed the plea, noting that no prima facie case was made out under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

No. Private citizens are generally not allowed to display the National Flag on their cars.

Under the Flag Code of India, this privilege is limited to high constitutional functionaries like the President, Prime Minister, Governors, and Chief Ministers while on official duty. Draping the flag on a vehicle is strictly prohibited.

Even miniature flags on cars are technically unauthorised and may amount to improper display.

Misuse or disrespect can attract penalties under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

The Court noted that Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare has been appointed to assist the three-member Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in the impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.

It observed that the appointment was made pursuant to a notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice. 

The Committee is examining allegations arising from the recovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence.

The Court earlier held that the Speaker’s constitution of the Committee was valid and did not violate statutory procedure.

No, it is illegal for private citizens to install or use sirens on their cars in India.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and related traffic rules, sirens are reserved exclusively for emergency and authorised government vehicles, such as ambulances, fire brigades, and police vehicles performing official duties. Unauthorised use creates a false sense of authority and endangers public safety.

Even government officials or police personnel cannot use sirens on personal vehicles. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly discouraged misuse, noting that sirens cause confusion, noise pollution, and intimidation on roads.

Violation can lead to fines, seizure of the vehicle, and legal or disciplinary action.

The Court has held that the circulation of fake and obscene AI-generated images of a member of the YouTube channel Slayy Point amounts to a prima facie violation of the fundamental right to privacy. It observed that the content was defamatory, derogatory, and unlawful.

The Court directed Meta, X, Google, Reddit, and other intermediaries to immediately remove the offending material and restrained any further circulation.

Google was also directed to de-index related links, while MeitY was asked to block the concerned websites.

The Court further ordered intermediaries to disclose basic subscriber details of the offenders and permitted masking of the plaintiff’s identity, citing the sensitive nature of the case.

[X & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.]

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the National Board of Examinations’ decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26.

The petitioners contend that reducing the cut-off to very low levels dilutes merit and poses serious risks to public health.

The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised warrant examination under Article 32, noting that standards in medical education have a direct bearing on patient safety and professional integrity.

The plea argues that the decision is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 21, and is inconsistent with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

[Harisharan Devgan v. UOI]

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, has allowed an in-camera hearing in the bail application of Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, who has been arrested in connection with a rape allegation. The order was passed considering the sensitive nature of the allegations.

This is the third rape complaint against the MLA. While he has been granted anticipatory bail in the second case, the first case is pending before the Kerala High Court with interim protection from arrest.

The State has also moved the High Court seeking cancellation of bail in the second case.

The matter highlights the judiciary’s approach towards privacy of victims, especially in sexual offence cases, while balancing the accused’s right to seek bail.

A Delhi court has convicted Asiya Andrabi, chief of Dukhtaran-e-Millat, along with two associates under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and IPC provisions.

The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved their active role in promoting secession of Jammu & Kashmir from India and endorsing armed struggle through speeches, social media posts and public advocacy.

It observed that the accused acted in tandem with a common objective of waging war against the Government of India and undermining national integrity.

The Court further observed that advocacy of Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan on religious grounds squarely attracts offences relating to sovereignty, integrity and public order.

The Supreme Court held that HT Media Ltd is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on fees paid to overseas agents for booking foreign speakers for its Leadership Summit.

The Court held that such services cannot be classified as “event management services” under the Finance Act, 1994. 

It observed that reverse charge liability arises only when the underlying service itself is taxable under the statute. 

The Court set aside the CESTAT ruling and allowed HT Media’s appeal, bringing the proceedings to an end.

[HT Media Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner GST]

The Supreme Court has considered an application filed by Priya Kapur, the wife of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, seeking certified copies of the 2016 divorce settlement and custody arrangements between Sunjay Kapur and Karisma Kapoor. 

Priya Kapur argued that access to these records is essential for ongoing estate litigation before the Delhi High Court, where issues of financial provisions, child support, and post-divorce obligations are under scrutiny. 

The request was opposed by Karisma Kapoor.

The case highlights the complex overlap between family law proceedings and succession disputes, especially where past divorce settlements may have a bearing on present inheritance claims.

[Sunjay Kapur v. Karisma Kapur] 

The Belagavi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that redBus and Pauls Travels were jointly liable for deficiency in service after the bus booked by the complainants broke down mid-journey and no alternate transport was provided.

The Court held that redBus could not escape liability as there existed a clear commercial tie-up and privity of contract between the booking platform and the bus operator.

The Commission directed a full refund of the ticket amount with interest at 8 percent per annum, awarded ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, and granted ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The Court held that online booking platforms share responsibility when services booked through them fail.

[Ashok Kadam & Ors. v. redBus India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has decided to hold regular court sittings on the first and third Saturdays of every month.

The decision was taken in a full court meeting on December 22 and notified on January 15, following a request by the Chief Justice of India to all High Courts to dedicate two Saturdays each month.

The move is aimed at addressing the high pendency of cases before the Delhi High Court. Data from the National Judicial Data Grid shows that over 1.25 lakh cases are currently pending, with a large number awaiting disposal for more than a year.

The additional sittings are intended to reduce backlog and expedite hearings.