The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the Lawrence School Sanawar Society in a case involving alleged trademark misuse and defamatory content on Facebook. 

The Court restrained certain individuals and entities from using the school’s registered trademarks, including its name and insignia. It also directed Meta Platforms Inc. to remove the disputed content from its platform.

The Court found that the defendants’ actions could harm the school’s long-standing reputation and goodwill.

Considering the urgency and potential damage, the Court held that interim protection was necessary and passed the order without hearing the other side.

[Lawrence School Sanawar Society v. Mr. Subodh Sinha & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court is hearing petitions filed by two women aged above 50 years who seek to undergo pregnancy through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

They have challenged the provision in the ART Act, 2021, which limits such procedures to women below 50 years of age. The Court noted that the petitions did not provide sufficient medical or scientific material to show that women at that age can safely carry a pregnancy.

Considering the issue, the Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist in examining the legal and medical aspects.

The matter is currently pending before the Court.

[Swati Sharad Parab & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

Social media platform X informed the Delhi High Court that it had asked the Central government to review an order directing the blocking of 12 accounts.

X argued that the order, issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, was excessive and did not meet the legal requirements.

It stated that most of the content on these accounts did not fall within the grounds for blocking and that blocking entire accounts, instead of specific posts, was disproportionate.

X also pointed out that the account holders were not given an opportunity to be heard. The matter is currently pending before the Court.

The Doctrine of Transnational Issue Estoppel serves as a critical procedural shield in international arbitration, preventing parties from relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided by a competent "seat" court.

Unlike res judicata, which bars entire claims, issue estoppel specifically targets individual points of contention that have passed muster in a foreign jurisdiction.

For the doctrine to apply, the prior judgment must be final, on the merits, involve the same parties, and address the identical subject matter.

By enforcing these findings, Indian courts streamline the arbitration process, effectively blocking "forum shopping" where a losing party attempts to repackage failed arguments as "public policy" violations under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Supreme Court of India has held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be challenged on "public policy" grounds if the seat court has already conclusively decided the issue.

The Bench introduced the doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' to prevent parties from relitigating settled factual or legal merits in Indian enforcement courts.

The Court emphasized that India’s sovereign commitment to the New York Convention mandates honoring foreign awards unless exhaustive grounds under Section 48 are met.

Consequently, once a seat court rejects a contention, the enforcement court cannot re-examine it, ensuring efficiency in resolving cross-border commercial disputes.

[Nagaraj v. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.]

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently denied bail to Devendra Dadsena, personal assistant to ex-State Congress Treasurer Ramgopal Agrawal, in the ₹540 crore coal levy scam.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held that prima facie evidence showed Dadsena’s involvement in handling and distributing illegal funds for political purposes.

The Court rejected a plea for parity with co-accused, noting Dadsena was arrested only in July 2025, unlike others who spent years in custody.

Emphasizing that economic offences constitute a "class apart," the Bench observed that such deep-rooted conspiracies affect the country’s financial health and demand a rigorous approach toward bail.

[Devendra Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh]

A Petition has been filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) highlighting the severe air pollution crisis in India. It states that air quality has deteriorated to such an extent that breathing itself has become a health risk.

It raises concerns about the failure of authorities to effectively control pollution levels and implement existing environmental regulations.

The plea seeks urgent intervention and stronger measures to address the situation and protect public health.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up by the Tribunal for further hearing on May 14, 2026.

Former Supreme Court Justice AS Oka has highlighted that India’s systemic judicial inefficiencies, including a severe shortage of judges and poor infrastructure, are costing the economy an estimated 1.5% to 2% of GDP annually.

With only 22 judges per million people, less than half the recommended ratio, commercial disputes often exceed 1,400 days to resolve.

This "execution risk" has significantly deterred foreign direct investment, which saw a 43% drop in 2023.

Justice Oka emphasized that without urgent reforms to judicial capacity and contract enforcement, where India ranks 163rd globally, the backlog of 3.5 crore cases will continue to stifle national economic growth.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 has received Presidential assent, officially enforcing a restrictive legal framework for gender recognition.

The Act narrows the definition of "transgender person," excluding self-identification as a standalone basis and requiring certification from a state-mandated medical board.

This shift from the NALSA (2014) principles has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups and a Supreme Court-appointed committee. The law introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment for forced identity or exploitation.

Critics and the Rajasthan High Court warn it transforms an "inviolable aspect of personhood" into a State-mediated entitlement, potentially undermining the fundamental right to dignity and autonomy.

The Punjab & Haryana HC has enhanced the accident compensation for a 45-year-old man to ₹60 lakh, ruling that resuming work in an "accommodated capacity" does not equate to a restoration of pre-accident earning capacity.

The Court observed that the claimant’s 65% functional disability significantly impaired his efficiency and cognitive health, despite his return to employment.

The Court further clarified that a delay in filing an FIR cannot defeat a genuine claim, as the immediate priority after a crash is seeking medical aid.

The Court rectified a lower tribunal's error by removing a 50% deduction for personal expenses, which is impermissible in injury cases.

[S.K. v. Insurance Company & Ors.]

The Central government has proposed draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 to increase oversight over online news and current affairs content.

The changes expand the Code of Ethics to cover not only publishers but also intermediaries and users who share such content. Authorities may examine and act on content even without receiving any complaint.

The proposal also requires platforms to follow directions, advisories, and guidelines issued by the government, linking compliance to their legal protection.

These amendments aim to strengthen enforcement and bring user-generated news content under a broader regulatory framework.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an employee’s acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle them to full pay and back wages for their suspension period.

The Bench held that such entitlement depends on specific service regulations and the discretion of the competent authority, based on whether the suspension was "wholly unjustified."

The Court observed that in bribery cases involving arrest, the employer cannot be "saddled with the financial burden" of full wages for a situation the employee embroiled themselves in.

Reinstatement is guaranteed upon acquittal, but payment of full salary remains a discretionary, case-specific decision.

[Dr. Lalchand N. Jumani v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai]

The Supreme Court has ruled that tax concessions granted by the government do not create an "indefeasible right" for recipients to claim them indefinitely.

The Bench held that the government maintains the statutory power to withdraw such benefits in the public interest, particularly for revenue augmentation or addressing fiscal constraints.

The Court clarified that while industries can enjoy concessions while they are in force, this right is "defeasible" and subject to the same power that granted it.

However, the Bench emphasized that such withdrawals must adhere to principles of fair play and reasonableness to avoid causing undue hardship to businesses.

[State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court recently said that no one can turn an adult’s choice of marriage into an “honour issue.”

The Court was hearing a case where a couple, who had married by their own choice, feared threats from the woman’s family, including possible honour-based violence.

Emphasising personal liberty, the Court held that it is the State’s duty to protect such couples, even from their own families. It also directed the police to ensure their safety and restrain the family from harming or contacting them.

The ruling reinforces that an adult has the right to choose their partner freely, without interference.The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 8.