The Supreme Court questioned the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over its inability to act against illegal roadside dhabas and encroachments along national highways, observing that responsibility cannot be repeatedly shifted to district or police authorities.

The issue arose in a suo motu case registered after fatal highway accidents in Rajasthan and Telangana in November that claimed 34 lives, allegedly involving poor road conditions and unauthorised roadside structures.

The Court sought a detailed compilation on NHAI’s statutory powers, relevant rules, action taken against violations, and accountability for lapses.

It indicated that after examining the legal framework, it may issue pan-India guidelines on road safety.

[In Re: Phalodi Accident]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a lawyer accused of impersonating a judicial magistrate when stopped by traffic police in Chandigarh.

The case arose from a May 2024 incident in which the petitioner was allegedly stopped for an obscured number plate, refused to produce his driving licence, and claimed to be a judge before driving away. A video of the incident later went viral on social media.

The Court held that specific allegations existed against the petitioner and that disputed facts could only be examined during trial.

It rejected the plea that the FIR was fabricated and declined to grant protection under Section 84 IPC at the quashing stage, while leaving the issue open to be raised during trial.

[Prakash Singh Marwah v. State of UT Chandigarh & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to use Goa’s old Lyceum High Court complex as an arbitration and mediation centre, holding that the petitioners had no statutory or legal right to make such a demand.

The Court observed that the plea appeared driven by personal interest rather than public interest.

Accepting the Goa government’s assurance, the Bench noted that the Lyceum’s heritage would be preserved

It also stated that the State would support setting up a mediation centre at an alternative location.

[Vishwesh Atchuta Kamat & Anr. v. High Court of Bombay & Ors.].

The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage that had effectively broken down after nearly 24 years of separation, observing that prolonged matrimonial litigation only perpetuates a marriage on paper and causes cruelty to both parties.

The Court held that long separation with no possibility of reconciliation amounts to mutual cruelty and justifies dissolution of marriage.

Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court restored the trial court’s divorce decree, noting that it is not the role of courts or society to judge which spouse is at fault when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

[Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty]

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), which had accepted the written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The State Commission held that the timeline for filing a written version is mandatory and not directory, and consumer forums lack the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the maximum period stipulated by law.

It reiterated that adherence to strict timelines is essential to ensure expeditious disposal of consumer disputes and that any acceptance of pleadings beyond the statutory limit defeats the object of the Act.

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited from using the name “KATARIA INSURANCE” or any deceptively similar mark for insurance services.

The Court held that the use infringed the registered trademark of Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, noting that both entities operate in the same insurance sector and that the mark “KATARIA” had acquired distinctiveness through long and continuous use.

Finding a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, and risk of irreparable harm, the Court directed maintenance of status quo until final disposal of the suit.

[Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court has advanced the hearing in former Union Minister MJ Akbar’s appeal challenging journalist Priya Ramani’s acquittal in a criminal defamation case over #MeToo allegations.

The Court moved the hearing from May 7, 2026, to March 16, 2026. 

Akbar contends that the trial court erred in acquitting Ramani despite finding her statements defamatory and relying on the possibility of a defence.

The trial court had acquitted Ramani, observing that a woman cannot be punished for raising her voice against sexual harassment. 

[MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani]

The Supreme Court observed that the practice of dowry has increasingly permeated Muslim marriages, eroding the protective purpose of mehr meant to secure a woman’s financial rights.

The Court noted that mehr was envisaged as an enforceable obligation on the husband to ensure dignity and security for the wife, but social practices have diluted its role.

Emphasising the need to restore mehr to its true legal and social function, the Court flagged concerns over gender justice and the growing influence of dowry-like demands across communities.

[State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg Etc.]

The Bombay High Court at Goa has converted a writ petition into a suo motu PIL following the deadly Arpora nightclub fire that claimed at least 25 lives.

The Court flagged systemic failures, including illegal constructions, indiscriminate licensing, and weak enforcement by authorities. 

It sought a preventive mechanism from the State to avoid such tragedies in future and directed the government to file an affidavit proposing corrective measures and fixing accountability. 

The matter will be heard on January 12, 2026.

[Pradeep Ghadi Amonkar & Anr. v. State of Goa & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹20 lakh on Instant Bollywood founder Mandeep Singh for suppressing material facts in petitions concerning the “Instant Bollywood” trademark.

While holding that the non-disclosure amounted to suppression, the Court granted Singh interim protection after noting his prima facie 50% intellectual property rights under a 2019 agreement.

It restrained the assignment of the trademark to Times Internet Inc. and directed maintenance of the status quo, while ordering Singh to deposit the costs with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

The matter is listed for further hearing in May 2026.

[Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin]

At the UN Security Council’s Open Debate on “Leadership for Peace”, India strongly criticised Pakistan’s internal political actions.

India’s Permanent Representative, Harish Parvathaneni, remarked that Pakistan has a “unique way of respecting the will of its people” by jailing former Prime Minister Imran Khan, banning his party, and granting lifetime immunity to its military chief.

India also termed Pakistan a “global epicentre of terror”, citing decades of cross-border terrorism and justifying the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.

The Delhi High Court upheld an order directing the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court ruled that a husband cannot rely on his wife’s inherited property or gifts from her family to deny maintenance.

The Court said maintenance must be assessed based on the wife’s actual income and her ability to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during marriage, not her natal family’s wealth.

It also held that a husband’s capacity to pay includes income from all legitimate sources, including family businesses.

Finding no error in the lower courts’ orders, the Court dismissed the husband’s challenge.

[Dhruv Kapoor v. Alka Yadav]

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to private hospitals by directing that no coercive action be taken against them for non-compliance with a Kerala High Court judgment mandating disclosure of services and treatment rates at hospital receptions and websites.

The Court sought responses from the Centre and the Kerala government on the challenge to the directions issued under the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018.

It also impleaded the Union Health Ministry as a party and posted the matter for further hearing on February 3, 2026.

[Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala]

The NCLAT clarified that WhatsApp must comply with the Competition Commission of India’s directions requiring greater user control over data sharing with Meta companies. 

While setting aside the five-year ban on data sharing, the tribunal restored CCI’s safeguards mandating user opt-in/opt-out choices, clear disclosure of data shared and its purpose, and express, revocable consent for non-essential data use, including advertising. 

WhatsApp has been given three months to implement the necessary changes.

[WhatsApp v. Competition Commission of India]