The Allahabad High Court recently questioned Uttar Pradesh authorities for refusing to recognise a Muslim man’s conversion to Hinduism.

The petitioner claimed he had voluntarily converted and married a Hindu woman, but the authorities rejected the conversion after objections were raised by his Hindu father-in-law, alleging illegal conversion.

The Court observed that such matters must be examined fairly and cannot be decided merely on the basis of private allegations without proper inquiry.

It criticised the authorities’ approach and stressed that an individual’s right to choose and practise a religion is protected under the Constitution.

[Anil Pandit @ Mohammad Ahashan v. State Of U.P. & Ors.]

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has constituted a committee to assess the infrastructural requirements of courts across the country and estimate the funds needed for modernisation.

The Court indicated that nearly ₹40,000–50,000 crore may be required to improve judicial infrastructure, including courtrooms, digital facilities, and basic amenities.

The committee has been directed to submit an interim report by August 31 and present its findings to a member of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Economic Advisory Council.

The initiative aims to address long-standing infrastructural deficiencies affecting the functioning and efficiency of the judiciary.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently held that failure of hair growth after plasma-rich platelet (PRP) treatment does not by itself amount to medical negligence.

The Commission observed that treatments such as PRP or hair growth factor therapy may not produce uniform results for every patient, and some individuals may derive little or no benefit despite proper medical care.

It noted that doctors cannot guarantee successful outcomes in all cosmetic or therapeutic procedures.

Finding no deficiency in service or evidence of negligent conduct by the medical professionals, the Commission dismissed the complaint seeking compensation for unsuccessful hair restoration treatment.

[Dr Satish Kishornandan Arolkar v. Sushil Mukesh Gaglani]

The Delhi High Court has directed that no commercial or religious activities be carried out on the Yamuna floodplains.

The Court observed that the ecologically sensitive area must be protected from encroachments and activities that could damage the river environment.

It categorically stated that “all types of commercial/religious activities for any purpose whatsoever” shall remain prohibited in the concerned area. The direction was issued while considering environmental concerns relating to the preservation of the Yamuna floodplains.

The Court emphasised the need to maintain ecological balance and prevent misuse of protected floodplain land for non-environmental purposes.

[Suresh Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.]

The Gauhati High Court has held that merely because one family member is declared a foreigner, other relatives cannot automatically be treated as foreigners without separate legal proceedings.

The Court observed that each individual’s citizenship status must be independently examined through specific references before the Foreigners Tribunal.

It criticised the practice of declaring children foreigners solely based on findings against their mother, without conducting an independent inquiry or providing an opportunity to contest the allegations.

Emphasising principles of natural justice, the Court ruled that citizenship determinations require individual assessment and cannot rest solely on familial association.

[Maya Das v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court of India recently observed that judges must display patience, restraint, and encouragement while dealing with young advocates appearing before courts.

The remarks came while hearing a matter arising from an exchange between an Andhra Pradesh High Court judge and a young lawyer, during which directions for the advocate’s custody were reportedly issued mid-hearing.

Stressing the importance of maintaining dignity and fairness in courtroom proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that junior members of the Bar should be guided and encouraged rather than intimidated.

The Court underscored that judicial conduct significantly impacts the confidence and development of young legal professionals.

The Allahabad High Court was recently informed by the Uttar Pradesh Government that strict compliance would be ensured with provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to arrests.

The State assured the Court that no person would be arrested without being informed of the grounds and reasons for such arrest, as mandated under the new criminal procedure framework.

The submission came during proceedings concerning alleged procedural violations by police authorities.

Emphasising personal liberty and due process protections, the Court examined whether law enforcement agencies were properly implementing statutory safeguards introduced under the BNSS.

[Santosh Gupta Thru. Her Nephew Nitin Gupta v. State of U.P.]