The Supreme Court described as a “new type of fraud” a minority claim made by an upper-caste person following religious conversion.

The case arose from a petition filed by a Haryana resident seeking admission to postgraduate studies under the minority category, claiming Buddhist faith despite earlier being recorded in the general category.

The Court questioned whether individuals from socially dominant communities can convert merely on paper to obtain benefits meant for genuine minorities.

The Court dismissed the plea and directed the Haryana Chief Secretary to submit the rules governing issuance of minority certificates and clarify whether such conversions are recognised for granting minority status.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a husband’s request to subject his wife to a medical examination in a divorce matter.

The case arose from a divorce petition filed before a family court, where the husband alleged cruelty on the ground that the wife refused to engage in sexual relations with him. The Court observed that the application was, in substance, a demand for a virginity test and would result in invasion of privacy and humiliation.

The Court further held that refusal to engage in sexual relations does not constitute an independent ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and that medical examination was not necessary to decide the dispute. 

The husband was permitted to rely on other evidence.

[Bhupendra Kushwaha v. Smt. Priyanshi Kushwaha]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that probationary employees fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and are entitled to statutory protections available under industrial law.

While upholding the validity of a probationer’s termination as termination simpliciter, the Court clarified that industrial law does not distinguish between permanent and temporary employees for determining workman status.

The Bench further held that wages paid under Section 17-B during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court are non-recoverable, even if the termination is ultimately upheld.

The judgment reinforces settled principles distinguishing motive from foundation in termination orders.

[Sarita Tiwari v. M/s Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the fundamental right to freedom of speech does not permit individuals to publish defamatory, abusive, or malicious content on social media.

The court observed that while free expression is a cherished constitutional right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and must be balanced with the right to reputation, an integral part of Article 21. 

Passing an ad-interim injunction, the Court directed the takedown of derogatory posts against PhysicsWallah, holding them prima facie defamatory and disparaging.

The Court emphasized that misuse of digital platforms amplifies harm due to their reach and permanence, warranting judicial intervention to protect goodwill and dignity.

[Physicswallah Ltd. v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has rejected a defamation suit filed by IRS officer Sameer Wankhede against the Netflix series Ba**ds of Bollywood*, holding that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court ruled that since the plaintiff, key defendants (Red Chillies Entertainment), and the alleged cause of action are all based in Mumbai, only the Mumbai courts are competent to adjudicate the dispute.

The Court returned the plaint, granting Wankhede liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Wankhede had sought damages and takedown of allegedly defamatory scenes claiming ridicule through a character resembling him.

The Court did not examine merits, confining its decision strictly to jurisdiction.

[Wankhede v. RCE]

The Supreme Court has clarified that the enhanced compensation of ₹30 lakh for deaths caused by manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning, as fixed in the Balram Singh judgment (October 2023), will apply to cases where deaths occurred before the judgment if compensation has not yet been determined or paid.

The clarification came on an application by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) amid conflicting High Court rulings on compensation amounts.

The Court held that cases where compensation has already been paid will not be reopened.

It also flagged delays in appointments to the National Safai Karamcharis Commission and sought accountability from the Union Government.

[Dr Balram Singh v. UOI & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court has held that casual or angry remarks made during a quarrel, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

The court observed that words like “go away and die,” uttered in the heat of passion, cannot by themselves be treated as an instigation to commit suicide. 

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that abetment requires intentional incitement or active aid.

Since no such intention was evident, the Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order and discharged the accused of offences under Sections 306 and 204 IPC.

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a confession made to the police cannot be used to convict a co-accused unless it is supported by independent and substantive evidence. 

While acquitting an accused in a theft case, the Court held that reliance solely on the alleged confession of a co-accused recorded by the police is legally impermissible.

The Court emphasized that such confessions have limited evidentiary value and cannot form the foundation of a conviction in the absence of corroborative material linking the accused to the offence.

Observing serious lacunae in the prosecution’s case, the High Court set aside the conviction and reinforced safeguards against wrongful criminal liability.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that High Court officers are entitled to compensatory leave for work performed on holidays, holding that denial of such leave is illegal and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that High Courts routinely function even on holidays for urgent judicial work, and officers discharging official duties during such periods cannot be deprived of compensatory benefits.

It emphasized that service conditions of High Court staff fall within the constitutional framework of Article 229 and must be respected by the administration.

Arbitrary denial of compensatory leave undermines fairness, service rights, and constitutional protections afforded to court employees.

Google has agreed to pay $68 million to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating user privacy through its Google Assistant feature.

Smartphone users alleged that the voice assistant recorded and shared private conversations after being activated without consent, including instances where it was triggered by “false accepts” of hot words like “Hey Google,” leading to targeted advertising.

The proposed settlement was filed in a federal court in San Jose, California, and will require court approval. Google denied any wrongdoing but chose to settle to avoid the risks and costs of continued litigation.

The settlement covers users affected since May 18, 2016, and plaintiffs’ lawyers may seek a portion of the settlement amount as legal fees.

The Supreme Court held that complaints alleging offences by public servants in the discharge of official duties must be supported by an affidavit.

The observation was made while hearing a plea challenging a Kerala High Court order on registration of an FIR against police officers.

Referring to existing directions for complaints against judicial officers, the Court said there is no rational basis to apply a different standard to public servants, as the requirement helps filter out false, frivolous or vexatious complaints.

The Court also clarified that a judicial magistrate may reject applications under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, if allegations are wholly untenable or inherently improbable, provided valid reasons are recorded.

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to a Popular Front of India (PFI) member accused of conspiring to radicalise Muslim youth and raise funds for terrorist activities. 

The Court held that the material on record disclosed reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true, attracting the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

It observed that alleged procedural lapses in seizure and the absence of a sanction for a specific provision did not justify bail at this stage.

Finding no illegality in the trial court order, the Court dismissed the appeal.

[Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka]

Wadia Ghandy & Co advised Inspira Global, its promoter, and Lenexis Foodworks on the acquisition of an 11.26 percent equity stake in Restaurant Brands Asia, valued at around ₹460 crore.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advised Restaurant Brands Asia and QSR Asia on the transaction.

The existing promoter group, comprising QSR Asia and F&B Asia Ventures (Singapore), exited its controlling interest.

Under the transaction structure, new investors will invest ₹1,500 crore through preferential shares and warrants, resulting in an open offer of up to ₹3,416 crore.

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows a childless widow to continue receiving family pension even after remarriage, subject to income conditions.

The petition was filed by the parents of a deceased CRPF personnel seeking the grant of family pension after the remarriage of their son’s widow.

The Court held that the Rule reflects a legitimate policy to provide financial security to widows and encourage remarriage. It observed that parents are Category-II beneficiaries and are not entitled to family pension when an eligible widow exists.

The Court dismissed the petition.

[Smt. Lakshmi Devi & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]