The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL by Lok Prahari challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which grants lifelong immunity to the CEC and Election Commissioners from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in their official capacity.

The petition contends that the provision exceeds constitutional limits under Article 324 and was added at the last stage of the bill.

While refusing to stay the provision, the Court will examine whether such immunity aligns with India’s constitutional framework.

[Lok Prahari v. UOI]

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a writ petition by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the non-exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations.

The petition argues that granting quotas to the creamy layer violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 38, 41, 46, 51-A(j), and 335, and undermines the purpose of reservations for socio-economic justice.

The Court will examine whether reservations should be limited to underprivileged members within SC/ST categories, following the principles highlighted in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh.

The plea has been tagged with another pending matter, Ramashankar Prajapati v Union of India.

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction restraining Zydus Lifesciences from launching its anti-cancer biosimilar ZRC 3276, taking note of public interest and the impending expiry of the patent held by ER Squibb.

The Court observed that injunctions involving life-saving drugs must balance patent rights with patient access, and that merely labelling a product as life-saving does not bar injunctive relief.

However, since the product-to-claim mapping was found to be incomplete, the Court permitted Zydus to sell the drug.

To safeguard intellectual property rights, Zydus was directed to maintain audited accounts of sales to enable assessment of damages, if required.

[Zydus Lifesciences v. ER Squibb]

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in suits for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, the vendor is a necessary party even if the property has been transferred to a third party.

The Court held that the vendor must be joined to ensure contractual covenants and obligations are fulfilled, while the transferee conveys the title.

The judgment also clarified that appeals do not abate if the deceased vendor’s interest is adequately represented by other legal heirs.

This ensures that the purchaser receives the benefit of the agreement as originally intended.

[Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court took up the long-standing property dispute between siblings Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar and Padmaja Kumari Parmar concerning the estate of their late father, Arvind Singh Mewar.

The Court held that procedural compliance was necessary and directed the counsel for Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar to file a fresh memo of parties in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules.

It observed that multiple proceedings arising from the same testamentary dispute had earlier been pending before different High Courts. The matter stems from a 2025 will naming Lakshyaraj Singh as sole heir, whose validity is contested.

The Court listed the case for further hearing on January 20.

The Bombay High Court took up appeals by public sector banks and an auditor challenging a single-judge order that stayed coercive action against Anil Ambani under the RBI’s 2024 Master Directions on fraud classification.

The Court observed that the interim protection was granted on a prima facie finding that the forensic audit report relied upon was not signed by a Chartered Accountant registered with the ICAI. 

The Division Bench noted the banks’ contention that the suit was time-barred and that the stay undermined the RBI’s fraud framework. 

The matter was listed for continued hearing on January 14.

The Supreme Court held that it will examine whether gangster Abu Salem has completed the 25-year imprisonment period assured during his extradition from Portugal.

The Court observed that the key issue is whether Salem’s undertrial custody, post-conviction imprisonment, and earned remission under Maharashtra prison rules cumulatively satisfy the 25-year cap.

It noted that conflicting interpretations by prison authorities and courts have raised arguable legal questions.

Directing Salem to place relevant prison remission rules on record, the Court clarified that the determination of remission entitlement would be crucial in deciding the legality of his continued detention.

[Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]

The Kerala High Court, while hearing bail pleas in the Sabarimala gold theft case, observed that existing mechanisms are inadequate to protect temple assets and suggested the enactment of a special statute with penal provisions.

The Court held that mere violation of the Devaswom Manual may invite disciplinary action, but misuse of official duty resulting in criminal acts attracts criminal liability. 

It observed that recurring instances of misappropriation of temple properties warrant a dedicated legislative framework, such as a Kerala State Devaswom Property Protection and Preservation Act. 

The Court reserved its verdict on the bail applications of the accused.

[Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala & connected cases]

The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot compel advocates to disclose the source of documents filed on behalf of their clients, as such a direction would violate attorney-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court observed that once a client hands over documents to a lawyer for legal defence, both the act of handing over and the source of the documents form part of protected professional communication.

It noted that while courts may seek the truth, they cannot override statutory confidentiality unless there is prima facie material showing the communication was for an illegal purpose.

The Court accordingly set aside the impugned order.

[McDonalds India Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi]

The Supreme Court held that it will examine a plea seeking to read down provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, to protect AYUSH practitioners from prosecution for medical advertisements.

The Court observed that the challenge raises important questions on whether the Act, enacted in the 1950s, has become constitutionally obsolete. 

It noted the contention that Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) arbitrarily exclude AYUSH doctors from the definition of “registered medical practitioners,” despite statutory recognition.

Issuing notice to the Union and concerned ministries, the Court will examine alleged violations of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

[Nitin Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Government has failed to discharge its constitutional obligations in curbing the illegal sale and use of banned nylon manjha.

The Court observed that the State’s response has been “episodic, reactive and ritualistic,” surfacing only after public outrage or court scrutiny. 

It noted that such inaction directly impacts the right to life under Article 21 and violates environmental duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g).

Finding enforcement against petty vendors inadequate, the Court directed the constitution of a Special Task Force and ordered sustained, intelligence-driven action targeting the entire illegal supply chain. 

[The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra]

The NCLAT Chennai Bench held that the conduct of the resolution professional amounted to an attempt to bypass and override its interim appellate orders.

The Court observed that despite clear directions keeping the CIRP in abeyance, the RP refused to hand over control of the company by adopting a self-serving interpretation of the stay order.

Terming this a “clever device” to sit over judicial directions, the Tribunal remarked that the resolution professional fraternity cannot remain “untouched by contempt” and needs to be taught a lesson.

Emphasising institutional authority, the NCLAT initiated suo motu contempt proceedings and directed the RP to file a response.

[National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench v. Anil Kumar Khicha, IRP, ISPT India Pvt. Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals claiming joint ownership of a residential property based on an alleged oral family settlement, holding that a registered conveyance deed confers decisive title.

The Court said vague assertions of joint family funds, without documentary proof, cannot override registered title documents.

It observed that although a family settlement may be oral, its existence and implementation must be proved by cogent evidence, which was absent in this case.

The Court also rejected the plea of fiduciary capacity under the Benami Act and held that permissive possession cannot mature into ownership or adverse possession.

[Sandeep Sethi & Anr. v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi (Deceased) Through LRs]

The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament of India and other public spaces, calling it a waste of judicial time.

The Bench warned the petitioner, a retired IRS officer, of exemplary costs for filing a frivolous plea.

The petition also sought directions barring the State from honouring persons chargesheeted for heinous offences.

After sharp observations and a warning of costs, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the PIL, which was accordingly closed.

[Balasundaram Balamurugan v. UOI & Ors.]