The Karnataka High Court lifted the ban on bike taxi services and directed the State government to allow motorcycles to be registered as transport vehicles and to issue carriage permits for their operation.

The decision was passed while hearing appeals filed by ANI Technologies, Uber India and Roppen Transportation Services against an earlier order that had supported the ban.

The State government had imposed the ban on June 16, 2025, directing app-based aggregators to stop bike taxi services. 

Ola and Uber welcomed the decision, saying bike taxis are an affordable mode of transport that improve last-mile connectivity and provide livelihood opportunities for drivers.

The Competition Commission of India is investigating Tata Steel, JSW Steel, SAIL and RINL for alleged price fixing and coordinated production cuts between 2018 and 2023.

The probe reviewed WhatsApp chats, pricing data, sales, and production patterns, including messages from groups such as “Friends of Steel” and “TMT Tycoons”.

The Commission found that the companies shared sensitive price information in advance and acted together to reduce supply and influence market prices. The four firms account for 44.4 per cent of India’s steel market. Tata Steel denied any wrongdoing and said it sets prices independently, while JSW, SAIL and RINL did not respond.

Senior officials are reviewing the findings and may impose penalties.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India issued a show cause notice accusing executives at EY, PwC, Carlyle and Advent of sharing unpublished price sensitive information linked to a 2022 Yes Bank share sale.

The notice alleged that confidential deal details were passed to family members and friends who traded in Yes Bank shares ahead of the July 2022 capital raising, in which Carlyle and Advent bought a combined 10 per cent stake for $1.1 billion.

SEBI said weak compliance systems at EY and PwC allowed the misuse of sensitive information.

The accused individuals and firms are submitting their responses and may face penalties or restrictions under securities law.

A Uttar Pradesh judicial officer, Vibhanshu Sudheer, who recently ordered registration of an FIR against police personnel accused of shooting a youth during the 2024 Sambhal violence, has been transferred three times since May 2025.

His transfer from Sambhal to Sultanpur drew criticism from opposition parties and protests from lawyers, who alleged political motivation. 

Earlier, he had held that a criminal investigation was necessary after a complaint alleged custodial firing outside the Sambhal Jama Masjid.

The Uttar Pradesh Police has stated it will challenge the order. The frequent transfers have sparked debate on judicial independence and administrative discretion.

The Delhi High Court has granted the Lokpal of India an additional two months to decide whether a sanction should be granted to the CBI to file a chargesheet against TMC MP Mahua Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query case.

The Court clarified that no further extension would be permitted.

It recalled that in December 2025, the Lokpal’s earlier sanction order was quashed for legal infirmities and violation of natural justice.

The Lokpal was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing Moitra’s submissions.

The Bombay High Court pulled up the BMC and NMMC for failing to implement air pollution control measures despite repeated directions.

The Court observed a belligerent disregard of its orders, particularly by NMMC, and proposed stopping the salaries of municipal commissioners for continued non-compliance. It clarified that the proposal was a warning and no immediate salary stoppage was ordered.

The Court noted the absence of inspections at identified construction sites and expressed dissatisfaction with BMC’s delayed actions.

The matter has been listed for further hearing.

[High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) has objected to a proposal to hold regular court sittings on two Saturdays every month as a measure to reduce pendency.

The Association said the move would have wide-ranging implications for the Bar, access to justice, and the work-life balance of all stakeholders.

It pointed out that Saturday sittings would particularly burden advocates who travel from distant districts to attend the High Court. The KHCAA stressed that such a major policy change cannot be implemented without detailed consultation and a clear mandate from its General Body.

Seeking time, the Association said it would place its considered views before the High Court’s administrative committee.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court initiated a suo motu case following representations by the High Court Bar Association over rising incidents of theft targeting advocates.

The action came after a lawyer’s wife was killed by burglars during a robbery. 

A Division Bench directed police authorities to file status reports on investigations. The Bar Association highlighted multiple incidents involving senior lawyers, alleged investigative lapses, and incomplete recovery of stolen property.

It stressed that the issue affects the safety and confidence of the legal fraternity and the public, warranting judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court requested the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the unconditional apology of an advocate facing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings over a heated courtroom exchange.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant observed that while judicial authority must be respected, professional friction can arise during court proceedings.

The Court noted that the advocate had expressed remorse and was willing to tender an unconditional apology.

Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the advocate to file an affidavit of apology before the High Court and requested the contempt bench to pass appropriate orders after due consideration.

[Mahesh Tiwari v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand]

The Supreme Court has declined to direct a reduction in the NEET UG qualifying cut-off for BAMS admissions for the 2025–26 academic year.

The Court noted that the academic session was already nearing completion and held that no interim relief could be granted at this stage. It recorded the National Commission of Indian System of Medicine’s opposition to any further reduction, observing that lowering the cut-off would compromise educational standards.

The Court also noted that only a small number of seats remained vacant across the country and that cut-offs had already been extended multiple times.

Emphasising that academic standards cannot be diluted merely to fill vacant seats, the Court dismissed the plea.

[NRI Institute of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences v. UOI]

A special PMLA court in Mumbai discharged senior NCP leader and former Maharashtra PWD Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, along with his son and nephew, in the Maharashtra Sadan scam case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. 

The court noted that Bhujbal had already been discharged in the related Anti-Corruption Bureau case.

His counsel stated that the absence of prima facie evidence of money laundering weighed with the court. 

The ED case stemmed from alleged irregularities in awarding construction contracts during Bhujbal’s tenure as PWD Minister.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, emphasising that the law must act as an “unwavering shield” for vulnerable children.

The Court noted the gravity of the allegations involving a 13-year-old girl who was allegedly abducted and repeatedly assaulted, and said the consistent testimony of the victim and supporting witnesses outweighed the accused’s plea for liberty.

The defence’s claims, including absence of physical injuries, were held to be immaterial, as a minor cannot consent legally.

The Court directed that the trial be concluded within six months.

The Orissa High Court set aside the Odisha Staff Selection Commission’s order debarring 58 candidates from appearing in any OSSC recruitment examinations for six years, holding the punishment to be unjust and disproportionate.

The candidates had been penalised in connection with an alleged question paper leak during the junior engineer (civil) recruitment process.

The Court noted that no charge-sheets had been filed against the individuals in the related criminal case and observed that the OSSC did not demonstrate sufficient evidence or due process in imposing the ban.

The judgment allows the aspirants to appear in future OSSC exams unless they are formally charged.

Reaffirming the primacy of succession laws, the Orissa High Court has held that a wife, being a Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, has the first right over her deceased husband’s estate, overriding any banking or insurance nomination in favour of other family members.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2023), the Court clarified that a nomination only authorises receipt of money and does not confer ownership or override statutory succession.

Accordingly, the Court directed Canara Bank to release the remaining terminal benefits to the widow, holding that lawful heirs cannot be deprived of their rights through nominations.