The Ernakulam Sessions Court sentenced six convicts in the 2017 Kerala actor rape case to 20 years rigorous imprisonment for gang rape (IPC 376D) and criminal conspiracy (IPC 120B).

The court directed ₹5 lakh compensation to the survivor, stressing the grave violation of dignity while noting mitigating factors like age and lack of prior criminal record.

All sentences will run concurrently, with trial custody set off.

Additional punishments and fines were imposed, including IT Act offences against the prime accused.

[State of Kerala v. Sunil NS @ Pulsar Suni]

While hearing the Centre’s appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s order on repatriation of deportees to Bangladesh, the Supreme Court cautioned against opinionated reporting.

CJI Surya Kant observed that “half-baked truths” and commentary disguised as news distort public perception. 

The Court stressed that publicity should not affect individual lives and reiterated its focus on humanitarian concerns. 

The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 6, 2026.

[Union of India v. Bodu Sekh]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a Magistrate’s order granting bail after finding a distant familial relationship between the Magistrate and the accused, holding that it created a “real likelihood of bias.”

Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that even perceived bias undermines judicial neutrality and vitiates proceedings, applying the nemo judex rule.

The Court granted interim protection to the accused, stressing that public confidence in the justice system depends on decisions being free from any appearance of partiality.

[Akash Walia v. State of Haryana and Anr.]

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Karnataka MLA’s plea challenging provisions of the PMLA that allow the Enforcement Directorate to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial scrutiny.

The Bench questioned how non-judicial authorities could adjudicate serious property and constitutional rights issues, observing a possible “fault in the Act.”

The case has been tagged with pending challenges to the PMLA’s adjudicatory framework, including the composition of its Adjudicating Authority and Sections 20 and 21.

[KC Veerendra v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Union Government informed the Lok Sabha that the Supreme Court had rejected the proposal to establish regional benches outside Delhi in 2010.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said a CJI-led Full Court, in its meeting on February 18, 2010, found no justification for such benches.

While Law Commission reports had suggested regional and constitutional benches, the Supreme Court declined the proposal.

The issue of a National Court of Appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has held that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts an appointment on compassionate grounds, the claim stands fulfilled and cannot be reopened to seek appointment to a higher post.

The Court said a compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and cannot be treated as an avenue for career progression.

It observed that mere eligibility for a higher post does not create a right to claim such appointment after accepting a lower post. Allowing repeated claims would amount to “endless compassion,” which the law does not permit.

The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s contrary directions.

[Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has held that airline pilots perform skilled and technical work and fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, irrespective of their salary levels.

The Court dismissed appeals filed by King Airways challenging labour court orders directing payment of unpaid salary and other dues to pilots.

It observed that a pilot’s primary function is flying the aircraft and that mere use of the term “supervise” under aviation rules does not establish supervisory control in practice. 

The Court upheld the awards passed in favour of the pilots.

[King Airways v. Captain Pritam Singh]

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who resigns from service is not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as resignation results in forfeiture of past service.

The Court rejected the plea that resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement and observed that the two are distinct under the rules.

It held that pension entitlement arises only on voluntary retirement after complying with the statutory notice requirement.

While upholding denial of pension, the Court allowed payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the employee’s legal heirs.

[Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation]

The Patna High Court has held that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, have no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984, due to the overriding effect of Section 20 of the latter statute.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court order declaring a marriage null and void.

It rejected the contention that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, observing that objections based on that statute are unsustainable in family court proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

[Anjani Kumar @ Pappu Kumar v. Mamta Bharti & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a Scientist-E employed with the Centre for Development of Telematics seeking permission to work from home due to hazardous air quality and respiratory issues.

The petitioner relied on the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management.

The Court held that GRAP guidelines are regulatory in nature and do not create enforceable personal rights for government employees against their employers. It was observed that permitting work from home remains a discretionary decision and cannot alter service conditions through judicial directions.

However, in view of the medical exigencies cited, the Court clarified that the petitioner may seek transfer on health grounds, which the employer should endeavour to consider.

[Shubham Verma v. Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) and Ors.]

The Orissa High Court ordered the Union Ministry of Education and related authorities to amend the consent form for the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) to expressly allow students and their guardians to refuse consent upfront, reinforcing that participation must be genuinely voluntary.

The Court observed that while the APAAR scheme is promoted as voluntary, the existing form only permits withdrawal after consent is given, which does not protect privacy rights effectively.

The Bench held that a clear opt-out/refusal option must be added within two months to uphold the right to privacy under Puttaswamy and related data protection principles.

[Rohit Anand Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.]

The President has directed Justice J. Nisha Banu, currently a judge of the Madras High Court, to assume charge as a judge of the Kerala High Court on or before December 20, 2025.

The direction was issued through a notification dated December 12, following her transfer notification issued on October 14, 2025, based on the Supreme Court collegium’s recommendation dated August 27, 2025.

Justice Banu’s non-joining despite the transfer order had drawn objections from sections of the Bar, with representations alleging judicial indiscipline, while certain bar bodies opposed the transfer citing her seniority at the Madras High Court.

The notification stated that the direction was issued after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

The Solicitor General assured the Supreme Court that the Centre will consider legislative changes to protect women who are forced to drink acid, bringing them within the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 

The Court observed that such offenders are “worse than animals” and highlighted that internal injuries from forced acid ingestion, though severe and lifelong, currently go unrecognised.

It noted that internal injuries from forced acid ingestion are often lifelong but not legally recognised as acid attacks.

The Centre has been directed to frame an appropriate policy within six weeks.

[Shaheen Malik v. Union of India]

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Bhiwadi-based school from using the marks ‘Delhi Public School’, ‘DPS’, and a deceptively similar logo, granting an ex parte injunction in favour of the Delhi Public School Society.

The Court held that the defendants' use of identical names, crest elements, and domain amounted to dishonest adoption, creating a clear likelihood of confusion.

Given DPS’s well-known trademark status and strong prima facie case, the Court directed immediate suspension of the impugned domain and barred further use of the marks.

[Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi]