The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police (SSP), Shimla, and the Home Secretary to file a status report detailing all sealed roads meant for pedestrian use. 

A bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma expressed concern that vehicles were blocking pedestrian pathways, leading to garbage piling up and unhygienic conditions.

The Court observed that Shimla is “losing its charm” and compared the situation to Mussoorie, where traffic is seen even on sealed roads, while also criticising the Municipal Corporation for failing to act. 

The matter will be heard next on October 10, 2025.

[Sambhav Bhasin v State of H.P. & Ors.]

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a proprietary tender issued by Indian Oil Corporation’s Panipat Refinery.

The Court held that since the refinery is located in Panipat, no cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that the mere fact that the tender was published online, or that the petitioner’s right to participate was allegedly affected within West Bengal, does not confer jurisdiction.

[Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co. v Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court ruled that a Hindu grandchild cannot claim a share in their grandfather’s property while their parent (child of the deceased grandparent) is still alive.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav relied on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which limits intestate succession to Class I heirs, and grandchildren are excluded unless their parent (child of the deceased) has predeceased.

In this case, a woman sought partition of her grandfather’s property, but the Court held that her father’s share was absolute and barred her independent claim.

[Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain & Anr.]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has admitted a PIL challenging the constitutionality of letting a police-run body, the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board (APSLPRB), conduct recruitment for Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs).

The petitioner argued that this conflicts with the principle of separation of powers, since prosecutors are meant to scrutinise police investigations. 

Key issues include whether APPs are permanent civil servants under Article 309, whether the recruitment notification clarifies their service terms, and whether appointment by police undermines prosecutorial independence and fair trial rights. 

The Court issued a notice to the State and listed the matter for hearing on November 5, 2025.

[Balabadruni Naga Satwik v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.]

The Supreme Court has reserved its order in a suo motu case concerning non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations, flagged by a Dainik Bhaskar report citing 11 custodial deaths in the past eight months.

The Bench observed that an independent, automated monitoring system—free from human interference—may be necessary to prevent tampering, deletion of footage, or switching off of cameras.

The Court also suggested the possible involvement of external agencies such as the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) to implement the project.

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging a Kerala High Court ruling that political parties are not required to set up internal committees to address sexual harassment complaints under the POSH Act, 2013. 

The Bench held that party members are not employees, and no employer-employee relationship exists within political organisations.

The petitioner had earlier filed a PIL seeking to bring political parties under the ambit of the POSH Act, but withdrew it after the Court noted the same limitation. The present petition was similarly dismissed.

[Yogamaya MG v State of Kerala and Ors.]

The Delhi High Court is hearing a plea by filmmaker Karan Johar seeking protection of his personality rights against unauthorized use of his name and image.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Johar, argued that several websites and social media pages were misusing his identity for merchandise sales and even fundraising, without consent.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora indicated that the court may issue take-down directions against specific infringing platforms but declined the idea of granting a blanket injunction.

[Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors].

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice M. Sundar, former judge of the Madras High Court, as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court.

His appointment will take effect from the date he assumes charge, succeeding Chief Justice Kempaiah Somashekar, who retired on September 14, 2025.

Justice Sundar’s elevation follows the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation dated September 11, 2025, which proposed his name for the position.

The Supreme Court refused to alter its interim order that directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to accept Aadhaar as a valid identity proof during Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. 

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi remarked that documents like ration cards or driving licenses are also susceptible to forgery, so Aadhaar cannot be singled out for exclusion on that ground alone. 

The Court clarified that this acceptance is only for identity purposes, not citizenship, and that the genuineness of Aadhaar cards submitted will be subject to verification.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that a Magistrate is not empowered to take re-cognisance of an offence under Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 

In this case, after cognizance was taken of a cruelty FIR against a husband (but not in-laws), the Magistrate issued summons to in-laws following a protest petition.

High Court set aside that order, stating cognizance can be taken only once and cannot be reviewed through a protest petition.

The Court clarified that Section 358 BNSS may be invoked during inquiry or trial, but not at the initial cognizance stage. 

[Amrita Jain v. State]

The Patna High Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her husband fails to make 'reasonable and fair provisions' for her future during the iddat period.

The decision came in a case where the wife had alleged cruelty after the marriage, which forced her to return to her parents. She did not have a source of income and therefore claimed Rs. 15000 per month as maintenance. 

The husband argued that the marriage had ended mutually (mubarat), and he owed her nothing after paying 1,00,000 alimony, den mohar and iddat expenses.

Both the Family Court and High Court rejected this claim, affirming her entitlement to maintenance.

[Md Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors]

The Kerala High Court has approved the use of WhatsApp as part of its Case Management System to make communication easier for lawyers and litigants.

From October 6, 2025, updates on e-filing defects, listing details, and proceedings will be shared through the platform in a phased rollout.

The Court clarified that this service is only an additional mode of communication, not a substitute for notices, summons, or other formal processes, unless specifically notified.

All official messages will be sent exclusively from the verified sender ID “The High Court of Kerala,” and users must cross-check information on the Court’s website to ensure authenticity.

The Supreme Court has stayed parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, while hearing petitions challenging its validity.

A bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that some provisions were prima facie arbitrary.

The Court stayed Section 3 (1) (r), which requires five years of being a “practising Muslim” to dedicate property as waqf, until state rules define the term. 

It also stayed provisions giving collectors power to adjudicate rights and restrictions on non-Muslim representation in waqf boards and councils. 

The Court had reserved the order on May 22 after hearing the parties over three days. 

The Lokpal of India has held that the Secretary and Additional Secretaries of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) are not covered by its anti-corruption jurisdiction when acting solely in their UPSC functions.

Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, extends jurisdiction to Group A, B, C, and D central government officers only when they serve “in connection with the affairs of the Union.”

The Lokpal bench led by Chairperson Justice A.M. Khanwilkar found that the complaint failed to show that UPSC officials were functioning beyond their UPSC duties.

The Lokpal dismissed the matter and advised the complainant to explore appropriate legal remedies.