The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a man accused of spying for Pakistan during “Operation Sindoor.”

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce concrete material showing that the accused had actually shared sensitive Army-related information with any person in Pakistan.

It also observed that the case was largely based on disclosure statements, with no independent corroboration. Additionally, sanction under the Official Secrets Act was still pending, preventing the trial from commencing.

Considering the lack of evidence and delay in proceedings, the Court held that continued custody was not justified and granted bail.

[Davender Singh v. State of Haryana]

The CBI opposed pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.

It argued that merely attending a seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), linked to the RSS, does not establish judicial bias.

The agency termed the allegations “sweeping” and warned that such reasoning could lead to judges being asked to recuse in numerous cases.

It also pointed out that the judge had passed both favourable and adverse orders in the matter, indicating no prejudice. The matter is scheduled for further hearing before the Delhi High Court.

[CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.]

The Central Government has criticized the Supreme Court’s reliance on "constitutional morality" to strike down laws, arguing it lacks a textual basis in the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that this "vague" concept has been used to overreach judicial review.

The Centre argued that the judgments decriminalizing adultery and homosexuality erroneously replaced "societal morality" with this judicially evolved term. Mehta maintained that Article 25 and 26 limitations should stick to "public morality" as intended by the framers. 

He further warned that using abstract ideals to reform religious practices risks the judiciary assuming a legislative role.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrict new Aadhaar enrolments to children below the age of six to prevent "infiltrators" from obtaining the document.

The petitioner argued that since nearly 144 crore Aadhaar numbers have already been generated, only newborns should require fresh enrolment.

The plea suggests that adults and adolescents should instead be required to obtain Aadhaar through Sub-Divisional Magistrates or Tehsildars under stringent guidelines.

Further seeking a clear display at all centers stating that Aadhaar is proof of identity only, not of citizenship, and calls for consecutive sentences for those obtaining the document using forged papers.

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI]

Current Indian laws generally prohibit employers from forcing employees to provide access to private social media handles.

Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, any data collection must be for a "specified purpose" and based on "free and informed consent."

Coercing an employee to share private passwords violates these principles. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy judgment established that individuals have a fundamental right to control their digital footprint.

While employers can legally monitor public posts, demanding access to private content without a clear, lawful justification constitutes judicial overreach into personal liberty. Employers may only intervene if private posts leak confidential company data or explicitly violate signed non-disparagement contracts.

No, housing societies cannot legally ban pets from using elevators.

According to the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), any resolution passed by a Residents' Welfare Association (RWA) to restrict pets from common facilities like lifts, parks, or lobbies is illegal and arbitrary.

Courts have consistently held that pets are "members of the family," and denying them elevator access constitutes a "deficiency in service" since owners pay maintenance for common areas.

While societies can implement reasonable safety regulations, such as requiring leashes or designating specific service lifts, a blanket ban is considered a violation of the fundamental duty to show compassion toward living creatures under Article 51A(g).

No, travel websites cannot legally add insurance or any paid add-ons to your cart automatically.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Dark Patterns (2023), this practice is classified as "Basket Sneaking" and an unfair trade practice. Regulations strictly prohibit pre-ticked boxes, requiring consumers to actively "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" of insurance.

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) further mandates that insurance must be a conscious choice. If a platform forces a purchase or conceals charges in the final bill, it violates transparency norms.

Consumers can report such deceptive digital tactics to the National Consumer Helpline for redressal.

The Bombay High Court has directed all judicial officers in Maharashtra and Goa to upload orders and judgments on the CIS server on the same day they are pronounced.

If there is any delay, officers must provide reasons for not uploading them on time. The Court warned that failure to comply would amount to misconduct affecting the integrity of a judicial officer.

Judicial officers have also been asked to submit monthly certificates confirming timely uploads.

The directions were issued following concerns over delays, irregular court practices, and improper case management observed during inspections of subordinate courts.

The Gujarat High Court upheld a family court order sentencing a man to 660 days of imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance of about ₹3.97 lakh to his wife and children.

The Court found no error in imposing 10 days’ jail for each month of default, which extended over 66 months.

It noted that the husband had admitted his liability and inability to pay, and had even surrendered before the court.

Holding that maintenance is a legal obligation, the Court ruled that the sentence was not disproportionate and dismissed the challenge to the family court’s order.

[Jitendrakumar Ambalal Kondi v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]

A Delhi court granted bail to Sukesh Chandrasekhar in a money laundering case linked to the alleged AIADMK “two leaves” election symbol bribery scam.

The Court noted that he had already undergone prolonged incarceration and had spent more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence without trial.

It emphasized that continued detention would violate the right to personal liberty and speedy trial. Bail was granted on furnishing bonds and subject to conditions, including surrender of passport.

However, Chandrasekhar will remain in custody due to multiple other pending criminal cases against him.

[ED v. Sukesh Chandrasekhar]

The Supreme Court held that an insurance company, when impleaded as a party in a motor accident claim, can contest the case on all available grounds, including the quantum of compensation.

It clarified that such a right is not limited to the defences under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which apply when the insurer is only a noticee.

The Court set aside a Bombay High Court decision that had restricted the insurer’s arguments and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on compensation, directing the High Court to decide the issue expeditiously.

[National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre’s advisory urging schools to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram.

The Court held that the Ministry of Home Affairs circular is purely advisory and does not impose any legal obligation on schools. It noted that the use of the word “may” indicates voluntary compliance, with no penalties or adverse consequences for non-compliance.

The petitioner had argued that certain stanzas refer to Hindu deities and affect secularism, but the Court found these concerns to be vague and premature.

Accordingly, it ruled that no enforceable right was violated and dismissed the plea.

The NCDRC dismissed a consumer complaint against Jaguar Land Rover alleging a manufacturing defect due to non-deployment of the driver’s airbag during an accident.

The Commission accepted the manufacturer’s technical explanation that airbag deployment depends on factors like seatbelt usage and crash severity.

Data from the vehicle showed that the threshold for deploying the driver’s airbag was not met, while the passenger airbag deployed due to different conditions.

The Commission noted absence of contrary expert evidence and held that no defect or deficiency in service was proved, rejecting claims for replacement and compensation.

[HS Bhullar & Ors. v. Jaguar Land Rover & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court directed the Copyright Office to decide within eight weeks the application filed by AI researcher Stephen Thaler seeking copyright registration for artwork generated by an artificial intelligence system.

Thaler has sought recognition of the AI system as the author of the work.

The Court did not examine the merits of the claim but instructed the authority to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

The matter arises after the Copyright Office had earlier refused registration, leading to the present proceedings before the High Court.

[Stephen Thaler v. UOI]