The Gujarat High Court has designated four lawyers as Senior Advocates following a Full Court decision taken on January 8.

The newly conferred Senior Advocates are Amar Niranjan Bhatt, Apurva Sharad Vakil, Megha Bhupendra Jani, and Mitul Kirit Shelat.

Megha Jani is the only woman among the four.

Notably, the High Court has recently introduced a minimum age criterion of 45 years for Senior Advocate designation, marking a significant step in regulating the process.

The Orissa High Court has received a PIL by Advocate Akash Sharma seeking suspension of toll collection at the Jharpokharia Toll Plaza on NH-49, citing the dangerously incomplete Dwarsuni Ghat stretch.

The plea alleges the road is riddled with potholes, craters, and construction obstacles, causing over 500 accidents and 100+ deaths, and remaining incomplete until November 2027.

It argues that toll is a user fee, not a tax, and cannot be levied without providing a safe, motorable road, calling the levy an unlawful exaction.

Invoking Article 21, the petition claims forcing commuters to pay while risking their lives is arbitrary and violates the right to safe travel.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that the mere presence of a person’s name in revenue records does not confer ownership or create any enforceable legal right over immovable property.

The Court clarified that revenue entries are maintained only for fiscal purposes and cannot be treated as proof of title.

The Court noted that the plaintiff herself admitted the existence of an earlier settlement deed in favour of another defendant, thereby negating any subsisting cause of action. 

It held that contradictory pleadings in the plaint were fatal and that the proper remedy, if aggrieved, was to file a suit for declaration challenging the settlement deeds.

[Beverley Singh v. Tejinder Singh & Anr.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State Election Commission cannot act unilaterally when elections are deferred by the State Government under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The Court quashed the final notification constituting Nagar Panchayat Swarghat, noting that although objections were filed by affected residents, no reasoned decision was passed by the competent authority.

While the objections were recorded and forwarded, an incorrect impression was created that they had already been decided.

Holding the decision-making process to be flawed, the Court directed the Secretary (Urban Development) to reconsider the objections and pass a reasoned order.

[Bal Krishnan & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that forced unnatural sex by a husband amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but cannot be prosecuted as rape due to the marital exception under Section 375 IPC.

The Court was hearing a husband’s plea seeking quashing of an FIR by the wife alleging physical abuse and non-consensual unnatural sexual acts.

While holding that offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC are barred in view of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, the Court clarified that such conduct still constitutes cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Accordingly, charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC were quashed, while proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 and 294 IPC were allowed to continue.

[SM v. State]

The Bombay High Court held that a landowner who voluntarily surrendered land reserved for a public purpose under a sanctioned Development Plan cannot later reclaim it after enjoying planning benefits for decades.

The Court ruled that surrender of land free of cost in exchange for benefits such as waiver of compulsory open space requirements or grant of higher Floor Space Index amounts to valid acquisition by agreement under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

It observed that consideration under the Act need not be monetary, as FSI and development rights have clear economic value.

The Court dismissed the second appeal.

[Milan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Election Commission’s power to recognise political parties as national or state parties, holding that the issue is already settled by Supreme Court judgments.

The plea was filed by the Hind Samrajya Party, which questioned the validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, arguing that the Election Commission lacked authority to grant such recognition and that the criteria under paras 6A, 6B and 6C were arbitrary. 

It claimed discrimination against smaller parties in allotment of symbols and election facilities.

The Bench rejected the challenge, noting that the matter stands covered by earlier apex court rulings.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of IMAX Corporation, clearing the way for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment.

The dispute arose from a 2000 agreement under which IMAX leased six IMAX systems to E-City, after which disputes led to ICC arbitration in London and three awards in IMAX’s favour between 2006 and 2008.

In October 2024, a single judge had refused to recognise and enforce these foreign awards.

Setting aside that refusal, the Division Bench held the awards enforceable as court decrees, rejected E-City’s objections, restrained it from dealing with its assets, imposed ₹5 lakh costs, and allowed execution proceedings to continue on January 16.

The Tripura High Court struck down a 25-year-old State policy mandating fixed pay for the first five years of service for newly recruited government employees, holding it to be unconstitutional.

The Court ruled that employees appointed to sanctioned posts through competitive examinations are entitled to draw regular pay from the first day of service.

It observed that continuation of fixed pay after a regular appointment violates principles of equality and service jurisprudence.

The Court allowed the writ petitions filed by teachers and other employees, while directing petitioners to pay costs and permitting them to seek further relief if the government fails to implement the decision.

A differently abled ahlmad (court record keeper) posted at the Saket District Court died by suicide inside the court premises, reportedly citing extreme work pressure and mental stress. 

A suicide note recovered by the authorities stated that he took the step on his own and did not hold anyone responsible.

He referred to his 60 percent disability, saying it made the workload difficult, and added that financial constraints prevented him from opting for early retirement. Following the incident, court staff staged a protest within the court complex.

The District and Sessions Courts Employees Welfare Association announced that employees across all Delhi district courts will abstain from work during the National Lok Adalat scheduled on January 10.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court stayed the single judge’s order directing CBFC to grant a U/A certificate to Jana Nayagan.

The Court held that the Union of India was not given an adequate opportunity to respond and questioned the urgency shown by the producers.

It observed that fixing a release date without a certificate created artificial pressure on the system.

The stay will continue until further orders, keeping the certification process open for review.

[M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.]

While hearing the stray dogs matter, the Supreme Court clarified that allegations of harassment, assault, or use of derogatory language against women dog feeders constitute criminal offences and must be addressed through FIRs and appropriate legal remedies, not at the apex court level.

The Bench held that such incidents raise law and order issues, for which remedies lie before the police, Magistrates, and jurisdictional High Courts, reiterating that its earlier orders on stray dogs do not authorise vigilantism or abusive conduct.

The Court emphasised that no judicial order can be used as a license to harass or intimidate individuals, particularly women.

[In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh]

Copyright is a legal right that protects original creative works like books, music, art, films, architecture, and software. It covers the expression of an idea fixed in a tangible form, not the idea itself.

Under Indian law, the Copyright Act, 1957, gives creators exclusive control to reproduce, publish, perform, adapt, and communicate their work to the public, and to authorise others to do so.

The purpose is to reward creativity while encouraging cultural growth, with protection typically lasting the creator’s life plus a substantial period.

Copyright arises automatically when the work is created, and registration strengthens enforceability.

A patent is a government-granted right given to an inventor for a novel invention that involves an inventive step and can be used in industry. A patent must be applied for and examined before grant.

Once granted under the Patents Act, 1970, it gives the inventor exclusive rights to make, use, sell, or license the invention for a limited term, usually 20 years from filing.

Patents protect technical solutions such as new products, machines, processes, or improvements, but not abstract ideas.

They are territorial rights effective only in the country where they’re granted and are meant to promote innovation by rewarding inventors for sharing their invention.