The Madras High Court dismissed Tamil Nadu Minister I. Periyasamy’s plea challenging an ECIR and related proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA.

The Court held that the petition was premature, as the parties had not first approached the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.

It directed Periyasamy and his family to avail the statutory remedy before the authority and clarified that they may approach the Court later if aggrieved by its decision.

[I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement]

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s 2019 judgment, which had refused relief to Adani Power on customs duty imposed on electricity supplied from its Mundra SEZ unit to the Domestic Tariff Area. 

The High Court had held that the SEZ customs duty exemption applied only between June 2009 and September 2010, and Adani Power cannot claim extension of the same exemption for later years without directly challenging subsequent levy regimes.

The Supreme Court overturned this view and allowed the appeal against the 2019 decision.

A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

[Adani Power v. UOI]

A full bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that seniority in the Border Security Force is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment and not by the date of selection or medical clearance.

The Court held that candidates whose appointments were delayed due to medical re-examinations cannot claim seniority over batchmates who joined service earlier. 

Interpreting Rule 8 of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002, the Court clarified that seniority follows the order of appointment unless candidates are appointed simultaneously.

It rejected claims seeking retrospective seniority and dismissed a batch of petitions filed by BSF Sub-Inspectors recruited through SSC.

[Jai Mangal Rai v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam at this stage under UAPA.

The matter arose from the 2020 Delhi riots case, where a Special Cell FIR alleged a larger conspiracy behind the violence that followed clashes during protests linked to the Citizenship Amendment Act.

The Court granted conditional bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan, stating that each bail plea must be assessed separately as the alleged roles are not equal.

It also noted that prolonged pre-trial custody and trial delay can still invite judicial scrutiny even in UAPA cases.

[Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi; Sharjeel Imam v. the State of NCT of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the CBI on former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea challenging the framing of charges in the IRCTC corruption case.

Yadav sought a stay on the trial proceedings, but the Court declined interim relief, noting that witnesses had already been examined.

The Bench directed the CBI to file its response and listed the matter for consideration on January 14.

The case concerns allegations of bribery through transfer of land parcels in return for IRCTC hotel maintenance contracts during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister.

The Supreme Court is examining whether the NCLT President has the power to transfer cases from one state’s NCLT bench to another.

Under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the President may transfer cases “when circumstances so warrant.”

A Gujarat High Court ruling limited this power to within the same state.

However, the Supreme Court has prima facie questioned this restriction, noting that cross-state transfers may be necessary to prevent a deadlock when benches recuse, ensuring effective adjudication.

[Anita Rayapati v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steels India]

The Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, granted anticipatory bail to Joby Joseph, the co-accused in the rape and forced miscarriage case involving MLA Rahul Mamkootathil.

The Court noted that Joby allegedly acted on the MLA’s instructions and that no prima facie material showed his knowledge of the victim’s unwillingness to terminate the pregnancy.

Observing the absence of criminal antecedents and limited attributed role, the Court held that custodial arrest would be unjustified and granted pre-arrest bail with conditions.

[Joby Joseph v. State of Kerala]

The Supreme Court has reduced the Bar Council election nomination fee for specially abled advocates from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹15,000, recognising that high costs act as a barrier to participation.

While declining to direct reservation during the ongoing election process, the Court asked the Bar Council of India to initiate amendments to ensure adequate representation of specially abled lawyers in the future. 

Emphasising meaningful inclusion in decision-making bodies, the Bench clarified that the fee concession is limited to the specially abled category and is only an interim measure pending broader structural reforms.

The plea was disposed of accordingly.

[Pankaj Sinha v. Bar Council of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking to restrain Prime Minister Narendra Modi from offering a ceremonial chadar at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah during the Urs celebrations.

The Bench held that the issue was non-justiciable and had become infructuous, as the chadar had already been offered.

It clarified that the dismissal would not affect the civil suit pending before the Ajmer court concerning the Dargah, which may be pursued independently.

The Madras High Court held that the State cannot take action based on superstition or unscientific public fears.

The case arose from north Chennai, where residents linked a series of unnatural deaths to the petitioner’s private worship of Hindu idols, leading authorities to remove them from his home.

The Court ordered the return and restoration of the idols and directed the petitioner to collect them from the Tahsildar’s office.

It clarified that allegations of unauthorised construction or irregular pooja timings can be examined separately under law and reiterated that private worship must not disturb the locality.

[A Karthik v. Rashmi Siddharth]

The Supreme Court has flagged that trial court judges are increasingly hesitant to grant bail due to a fear of disciplinary action, leading to an influx of bail petitions before High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that the initiation of departmental proceedings against judicial officers for alleged wrong exercise of discretion discourages them from granting bail even in deserving cases. 

It emphasised that a mere erroneous order or incorrect exercise of discretion cannot, by itself, justify disciplinary proceedings. 

The Court called upon High Courts to ensure that judicial officers are not subjected to departmental inquiries solely for passing bail orders perceived as incorrect.

[Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant successive bail to an accused, holding that long incarceration alone cannot be considered a change in circumstances when an earlier bail plea has already been rejected through a detailed order.

The court stated that a second bail application must demonstrate fresh grounds or a material change in the facts.

It observed that allowing repeated bail pleas on the same grounds would undermine judicial discipline and finality of orders.

Finding no new circumstances since the earlier rejection, the Court dismissed the bail application.

[Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office]