The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant relief to advocate Rajat Kalsan, who is facing an FIR for allegedly calling villagers “casteist goons” during a public speech.

The case relates to remarks made at a public meeting concerning a 2024 murder, following which an FIR was registered in July 2025.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the repeated and conscious use of the term “caste” showed intent and could not be treated as casual or incidental speech. The Court observed that such remarks have the potential to disturb public order, and an advocate’s professional duty is to represent clients before courts, not to mobilise crowds or lead public agitations.

Finding no satisfactory explanation for the expression used, the Court dismissed the plea.

[Rajat Kalsan v. State of Haryana]

The Allahabad High Court held that the caveat notice procedure in the Board of Revenue, U.P., was faulty, noting that service endorsements were not secured and hearing gaps for outstation counsel were insufficient.

The Court observed that outstation lawyers filing a caveat must provide an email address, mobile number, and WhatsApp number to receive urgent updates. It stated that a minimum one-week gap is required between lodging a caveat and hearing the matter, especially for outstation counsel.

Emphasising basic fairness before caveat hearings, the Court issued broad guidelines and clarified that rule amendments may be considered if necessary.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

[Tribhawan Goyal v. State of U.P. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has issued a new Standard Operating Procedure prescribing timelines for oral arguments in all post-notice and regular hearing matters.

As per a circular dated December 29, Senior Advocates and arguing counsel must indicate in advance the time they propose to take for oral submissions through the Court’s online appearance slip portal, at least one day before the hearing.

The Court said the measure is aimed at better court management, fair use of judicial time and expeditious disposal of cases.

It has also made it mandatory to file brief written submissions, limited to five pages, at least three days prior to the hearing after serving a copy on the opposite side.

The Telangana High Court has directed registration of an FIR in connection with the alleged illegal alienation of Bhoodan land in Nagaram village, Maheshwaram mandal.

Allowing a criminal revision petition, the Court set aside a magistrate’s order which had declined to proceed with the complaint and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

It permitted registration of an FIR against a senior IAS officer, revenue officials, and representatives of a private construction firm accused of unlawfully transferring Bhoodan land.

The Court also noted that the Enforcement Directorate is already probing the alleged scam linked to the same survey number and has attached properties treated as proceeds of crime.

The Orissa High Court has directed experts from IIT-Bhubaneswar to be present at the next hearing on January 8, 2026, concerning the progress of the ₹496 crore Cuttack branch storm water channel drainage project.

The special bench overseeing civic issues in Cuttack said the experts’ assistance is necessary during re-vetting of the detailed project reports to ensure technical soundness and timely execution.

The Court took note of assurances by the Water Corporation of Odisha that surveys have been completed and soil test reports will be submitted to finalise sustainable drainage designs.

The project is intended to tackle chronic urban flooding in Cuttack.

The Kerala High Court has granted bail to an assistant director accused of sexually harassing an aspiring actress inside the office of a film production company in Kochi.

The Court allowed the bail plea after noting that the accused had been arrested earlier following dismissal of his anticipatory bail application at the preliminary stage of investigation.

While granting bail, the Court orally directed the accused to surrender his passport, with a detailed order yet to be passed.

The prosecution has alleged offences relating to outraging the modesty of a woman, unwelcome physical contact and wrongful restraint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

[Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala]

The Gujarat High Court has permitted film director Rajkumar Santoshi to travel abroad between December 30, 2025, and January 4, 2026, for the promotion of his upcoming film, Lahore 1947, while relaxing a bail condition imposed in a cheque dishonour case.

The Court modified the condition requiring prior permission to leave India, noting that a substantial portion of the cheque amount had already been deposited.

Santoshi was granted time till January 31, 2026, to deposit the remaining balance, with a clear direction that no further extension will be allowed.

The sentence awarded under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains suspended, and all other bail conditions continue to apply.

[Rajkumar Santoshi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has closed a 46-year-old criminal case, holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial extends even to appellate proceedings.

The Court observed that keeping a criminal appeal pending for decades defeats the purpose of the justice system and causes serious prejudice to the accused. It noted that enforcing a substantive sentence after such an extraordinary delay would serve no meaningful purpose.

Emphasising that sentencing should aim at reform rather than prolonged punishment, the Court held that the inordinate delay itself justified closure of the proceedings.

Accordingly, it brought the long-pending criminal proceedings to an end on the ground of inordinate delay.

[Shameema Begum v. PS Bijhama]

The Kerala High Court has orally observed that there are allegations indicating a delay in the investigation while hearing bail applications in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

The remark was made during proceedings involving accused persons linked to the alleged theft of gold from the premises of the Sabarimala temple.

While considering the bail pleas, the Court examined submissions relating to the stage and manner in which the investigation is being conducted by the authorities. It noted that the progress of the probe would be a relevant factor in deciding the applications.

The observations were made in the context of bail proceedings and no final conclusions were drawn on the merits of the case.

[A Padmakumar v. State of Kerala]

The Delhi High Court disposed of Meta Platforms Inc.’s execution petition after recording that bakery outlets previously operating under FACEBAKE and FACECAKE removed signboards and completed rebranding as BUNCAKE.

Meta had alleged delayed payment and continued use of restrained marks. However, the Court recorded that the decretal amount, including nominal damages and costs, was paid on September 16, 2025, after the bakery operators repeatedly sought Meta’s bank details.

It observed that the delay in receiving payment was connected to Meta not taking steps to share the details despite being asked.

The Court clarified that the injunction will remain in force and Meta may seek new relief if future violations arise.

[Meta Platforms Inc v. Noufelmalol & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Biodeal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. from using “PEPFIX-DSR” and “MINOZIL,” finding them visually and phonetically similar to Sun Pharma’s registered trademarks “PEPFIZ” and “MINOZ.”

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. sought summary judgment in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit after an earlier 2022 injunction.

The Court noted Biodeal did not appear or contest despite service and had not filed a written statement. It held that the marks fall under triple identity, implying identical product category and trade channels, and recorded that 19,000 infringing products were seized earlier by local commissioners.

The suit was decreed and costs awarded in favour of Sun Pharma. 

[Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Supreme Court questioned former UP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s plea challenging the aggravated charge under the POCSO Act in the Unnao rape case. 

Hearing the CBI’s appeal against his bail, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice AG Masih expressed concern over the argument that a constable or patwari is a “public servant” under POCSO, but not an elected MLA.

The Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s bail order, observing that the interpretation raises serious questions of law regarding abuse of dominance and protection of child victims under the POCSO framework.

[Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI]

The Allahabad High Court has imposed ₹20 lakh costs on the Rae Bareli district authorities for illegally demolishing a citizen’s property without notice or hearing, calling it a “very sorry state of affairs.”

Justice Alok Mathur held that the action violated Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property.

The Court ordered restoration of possession of the vacant land to the petitioner and directed an enquiry against the erring officials.

It noted that revenue authorities acted arbitrarily, ignored due process and Supreme Court guidelines on demolitions, and caused serious infringement of constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has overturned a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that dismissed Culver Max Entertainment’s Section 9 insolvency petition against Odisha-based Rechargekit Fintech.

The appellate tribunal held that the NCLT erred in rejecting the plea outright without granting Culver Max an opportunity to rectify procedural defects in its application under Section 9(5)(ii) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. 

Setting aside the April 30, 2024 order, NCLAT remanded the matter to the NCLT for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be allowed to cure defects before the insolvency plea is examined on merits.