The Allahabad High Court has warned several district judges in Uttar Pradesh over delays in responding to directions on installing fire-fighting equipment in court premises.

Expressing strong displeasure, the Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary granted a final two-week deadline, cautioning that stringent orders may follow in case of non-compliance.

The Court noted that despite repeated communications from the High Court and State Government, proposals and responses from multiple districts remain pending.

The matter will be heard next on January 27, 2026.

The Enforcement Directorate has approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a CBI probe against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging obstruction of a lawful money-laundering investigation during ED searches at the premises of political consultancy firm I-PAC.

The ED has claimed that its officers were restrained during the search and that documents and electronic devices were taken away, allegedly interfering with its statutory powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Trinamool Congress has denied the allegations, calling the move politically motivated and linked to the upcoming elections. It has also sought protection against alleged misuse of party-related documents.

Multiple petitions filed by the ED, the TMC and I-PAC’s co-founder are listed before Justice Suvra Ghosh.

A Gift Deed and a Will are legal instruments used to transfer property, but they operate in different ways.

A Gift Deed is a voluntary transfer of property made during the lifetime of the owner, without consideration. Once executed, accepted, and registered, the transfer is immediate and generally irrevocable, and the donor loses all rights over the property.

A Will is a declaration of how a person’s property should be distributed after their death. It does not create any immediate rights and takes effect only upon the death of the testator. A will is revocable at any time and does not require compulsory registration.

In short, a gift deed transfers ownership immediately, while a will operates only after death.

The Supreme Court has restrained the declaration of the results of the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) elections amid allegations of fraud and electoral roll manipulation involving members of a BCCI Sub-Committee.

The Court directed that results shall not be declared until further orders, safeguarding the sanctity of the process.

The plea alleges irregularities in the preparation of the electoral roll, including reliance on a purportedly anti-dated ombudsman order and deviation from the JKCA Constitution, despite elections being conducted under the supervision of a court-appointed electoral officer.

[Youth Cricket Club & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association & Anr.]

The Supreme Court held that excavators, dumpers, loaders, and other heavy earth-moving machinery used exclusively within a factory or enclosed premises are not “motor vehicles” under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Allowing Ultratech Cement’s appeal, the Court ruled that such off-road construction equipment is not liable to road tax, as taxation applies only to vehicles suitable for use on public roads.

However, the Court clarified that if such machinery is used on public roads, tax and penalties may apply.

[Ultratech Cement Ltd v. State of Gujarat & Ors.]

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties are procedural concepts that deal with who should or should not be included in a civil suit. Their purpose is to ensure fair and effective adjudication.

Misjoinder of parties occurs when a person who has no legal interest in the dispute is unnecessarily added to the case. 

Non-joinder of parties arises when a person who ought to have been included is left out. 

Under Order 1 Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit is not dismissed for misjoinder or non-joinder unless a necessary party is missing. Courts may add or remove parties to ensure complete and fair justice.

The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately grant a U/A 16 certificate to the Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan.

The Court held that the CBFC’s decision to refer the film to a revising committee after approving cuts recommended by its examining committee was without jurisdiction.

The Court observed that once the suggested excisions were carried out, the certification had to follow automatically.

It further held that entertaining a complaint from an examining committee member after certification would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the certification process.

[Jana Nayagan Producers v. Central Board of Film Certification]

The Delhi court framed charges against RJD President Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and his children Tejashwi Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav, Misa Bharti, along with 46 others, in the alleged Railways land-for-jobs scam.

The matter arose when the CBI alleged that during his tenure as Union Railway Minister, Group D jobs were given to candidates in return for land parcels transferred to his family at nominal prices, bypassing any public recruitment process, forming a quid pro quo conspiracy.

Lalu faces charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions, while family members are charged with criminal conspiracy and cheating.

The Court allowed charges against 46, discharged 52, refused the discharge plea, and dismissed the case against rehearing.

The Kerala High Court held that a civil decree for recovery of loan dues does not absolve accused persons from criminal liability for misappropriation and conspiracy under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case involved a bank official and a private contractor who fraudulently siphoned housing loan funds by misrepresenting to the borrower.

The Court noted that while the civil decree enforced recovery from the borrower, the accused gained illegally, making them liable for criminal prosecution.

The conviction was upheld, though the sentence was reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment.

[PV Ravi v. SPE/CBI Kochi]

The Calcutta High Court has held that a divorced daughter can claim family pension if she was financially dependent on the pensioner and divorce proceedings had commenced during the pensioner’s lifetime.

The case concerned a railway retiree’s daughter who was deserted by her husband in 1995 and began living with and depending on her father from 1997, without any independent source of income. After the pensioner’s death, the Railways rejected her claim in 2022.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed her claim in 2024. Upholding the CAT’s order, the High Court rejected the Union of India’s challenge, holding that the daughter’s dependency stood established and the Railways’ objection was unsustainable.

The writ petition was dismissed.

[UOI & Ors. v. Mita Saha Karmakar]

Supreme Court directed High Courts to prioritise disposal of petitions that keep trials in heinous offences pending for years, stating that long trial stays through interim orders mock justice.

The matter arose when a criminal revision in the Rajasthan High Court remained pending for 22+ years, keeping a murder trial stayed despite an FIR registered in 2002 alleging dowry harassment and murder, and charges framed the same year. 

The Supreme Court sought data on criminal revisions filed and decided between 2001 and 2026, inquired about the frequency of listing, and ordered an urgent hearing on January 15, 2026.

Its order has been circulated to all High Court registries.

[Vijay kumar & Ors. v. the State of Rajasthan]

Yes, it is legal if both parties are adults. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a person can marry without parental consent as long as they meet the minimum legal age: 21 years for men and 18 years for women.

Parental consent is not required for adult marriages. However, free and voluntary consent of both parties is essential for a marriage to be legally valid.

Marriages where one or both parties are below the legal age are considered voidable, even if parents give consent.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to direct the State to transfer a government servant, holding that a transfer policy issued by the State is only a guiding factor and not enforceable in law.

The Bench observed that transfer and posting of government employees fall squarely within the administrative domain of the State, and courts cannot interfere or direct transfer of a particular employee unless there is clear proof of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

Executive instructions or policies, the Court said, cannot override administrative discretion or confer enforceable rights.

Finding no illegality in the State’s action, the Court declined to grant relief and dismissed the petition.

[Ful Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court held that an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC only based on evidence recorded during the trial and not on materials contained in the charge sheet or case diary.

The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, requiring more than a mere prima facie case. 

Upholding the trial court’s order, the High Court found that the evidence on record did not justify summoning the deceased woman’s in-laws in a dowry death case, as the prosecution material failed to establish their involvement beyond suspicion.

[Man Singh v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.]