The Ministry of Labour and Employment is considering implementing the four Labour Codes from April 1, aligning their rollout with the financial year followed by Indian companies.

The proposal is being examined as revised wage structures under the Codes could increase employer liabilities towards provident fund and gratuity, with potential balance sheet implications. The Ministry notified draft Rules for all four Codes on December 31, 2025, and invited stakeholder comments.

Although the Codes were enacted in November 2025, they will become operational only after the final Rules are notified or a separate commencement date is announced.

The Ministry is also considering relaxing eligibility thresholds for gig workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020.

The Kerala High Court held that courts can take cognisance of offences allegedly committed by a notary public only on a complaint filed by an officer authorised by the concerned government, as mandated under Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act.

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a practising lawyer and notary accused of attesting a fabricated consent letter used to obtain a municipal licence.

It observed that the acts complained of were performed in the discharge of notarial functions and that the mandatory statutory requirement was not followed.

Consequently, all further proceedings were set aside.

[Malu K. v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court dismissed expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s plea seeking suspension of his 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the Unnao rape survivor’s father.

The Court said that although Sengar had undergone long incarceration, relief could not be granted merely on the ground of delay, especially since the delay was partly due to multiple applications filed by him.

The Court observed that the appeal should instead be heard expeditiously and listed the matter for further hearing.

Sengar was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.

[Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. State]

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a mandate that every court in India must decide cases within one year, calling it a “publicity interest litigation.”

The Court said such sweeping directions were impractical and the judicial process could not be reduced to rigid timelines.

It observed that filing petitions merely to attract public attention was impermissible.

The Bench clarified that suggestions on judicial reforms could instead be submitted to the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side through a representation, and such inputs would always be welcome.

[Kamlesh Tripathi v. UOI]

The Supreme Court stayed a Rajasthan High Court order directing the removal or relocation of all liquor shops located within 500 metres of National and State Highways across the State.

The Court noted that while road safety concerns were genuine, the High Court could not ignore the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling exempting liquor vends situated within municipal limits from the highway ban.

It observed that the High Court order, arising from a local dispute, had resulted in a sweeping State-wide direction without hearing all affected parties.

The matter will be examined further after notice.

[Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan]

The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR alleging forgery of a registered Will, holding that pending probate proceedings do not bar criminal investigation.

The Court said allegations of forgery and use of forged documents constitute independent criminal offences and cannot be stalled by civil proceedings examining the Will’s validity.

It observed that civil and criminal remedies operate in distinct spheres with different standards of proof.

The Court further held that at the quashing stage, it cannot assess evidence or conduct a mini-trial, and dismissed the petition seeking to halt the investigation.

[Babita Chopra v. State]

The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure a transparent, fair, and citizen-friendly verification process for individuals placed in the “logical discrepancy” category during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal.

The Court directed the ECI to publicly display lists of persons issued notices at Panchayat and Block offices to ensure transparency.

It clarified that affected persons may submit documents and objections through authorised agents, including Booth Level Agents.

To avoid hardship, the Court ordered that document submission centres be set up locally and that individuals be granted a hearing if documents are found unsatisfactory, ensuring no undue inconvenience or stress to voters.

[Mostari Banu v. The election commision of India]

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the Delhi government’s decision to enforce the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, during the ongoing academic year.

The bench observed that although the law serves a legitimate regulatory purpose, its mid-year implementation appears confused and potentially unworkable.

The Court questioned the justification for initiating fee approval processes after the academic session had begun, noting possible retrospective consequences such as recovery of fees already collected.

While declining to interfere with the law’s validity at this stage, the Court stressed that its implementation must align with statutory timelines and remain practically feasible.

The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement recorded in a Lok Adalat must be arrived at with the free consent of the parties, and that counsel cannot enter into a compromise without written authorisation.

The case arose from a challenge to a settlement recorded in a National Lok Adalat in an appeal pending before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The Court found that no authorised representative of the company was present and no authority letter was produced.

Holding that such a settlement defeats the object of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it set aside the Lok Adalat order and directed the Commission to decide the appeal on merits.

[Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd v. Hakim Uddin]

The Karnataka Government is exploring the creation of a regulatory sandbox for technology startups after proposed amendments to the Karnataka Innovation Authority rules.

The plan seeks to provide startups a structured framework to test new technologies in areas where regulations are still evolving, while also serving as a basis for recommending policy changes.

The proposed sandbox is aimed at ensuring that innovation progresses alongside the law and at avoiding regulatory uncertainty seen in earlier technology-led disputes.

While startup ecosystem leaders have welcomed the concept, industry veterans have voiced reservations, pointing to earlier sandbox initiatives that failed due to weak execution and stressing the need for sustained government commitment, cabinet-level backing, and a robust review mechanism.

The Court has held that the establishment of the Kolhapur circuit bench has significantly improved access to justice for litigants from six districts of western Maharashtra.

It noted that the decentralisation of the High Court reduced travel, cost, and delay, allowing many appeals that were earlier abandoned due to distance from Mumbai to be revived.

The Bench observed that local availability of the High Court strengthens constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 by making justice more affordable and timely. It also pointed to increased case filings, quicker disposals and effective integration with e-courts as indicators of functional efficiency.

Upholding the continued operation of the Kolhapur bench, the Court reaffirmed the importance of regional benches in advancing equitable access to justice.

The Bombay High Court held that ‘Shaadi.com’ qualifies as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its exceptional reputation, goodwill, and long-standing use in matrimonial services.

It observed that the defendants’ use of the domain name getshaadi.com was deceptively similar and amounted to trademark infringement.

The Court further observed that the use of Shaadi.com as meta tags and keywords showed an intent to divert web traffic and trade upon the plaintiff’s goodwill.

It restrained the defendants permanently and awarded ₹25 lakh as compensatory costs.

[People Interactive India Private Ltd v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.]

The Court held that the cancer detection method claimed by the Japanese firm is barred under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.

It observed that the invention constitutes a diagnostic method for detecting cancer and is therefore not patentable.

The Court further observed that it is immaterial whether the method is performed by medical professionals or operates autonomously outside the human body.

The Court upheld the Patent Office’s rejection and dismissed the firm’s appeal, affirming that diagnostic processes fall squarely within the statutory exclusion.

[Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs]