The Delhi High Court held YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt for making derogatory comments and baseless allegations of corruption against judicial officers.

Pahuja, who operates the channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms,” uploaded videos featuring interviews with advocates that mocked the judicial system.

While the Court dropped proceedings against the lawyers following their unconditional apologies, it noted that Pahuja continued to justify his actions. 

The Bench emphasized that while fair criticism is permitted, personal attacks without evidence undermine the authority of the law and interfere with the dispensation of justice.

[Court on its own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv & Ors.]

A Chandigarh court granted bail to a Rohtak-based lawyer accused of attempting to extort ₹1.5 crore from an Additional Sessions Judge using a morphed, objectionable video.

The Court observed that a prima facie case for extortion under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not established since no money was actually delivered.

Noting that while the complainant was placed in fear of injury, which is a separate offense under Section 308(3) of the BNS, the lawyer had been in custody since April 11 and further detention was unnecessary.

The accused was ordered to provide voice samples for the ongoing investigation. 

The Supreme Court Recruitment Cell has attributed significant discrepancies in the Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate examination results to a third-party agency.

Following candidate complaints of 20 to 30 mark differences in Part 1 scores, the agency admitted to evaluation mistakes and requested 72 hours to rectify the errors.

The Recruitment Cell expects to release a revised scorecard by April 24. Consequently, links for viewing scores and submitting interview preferences have been temporarily suspended.

The examination, conducted via TCS iON Digital Zones, requires a 60% score in Part 1 for the evaluation of the subjective Part 2 papers.

The Patna High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal seeking compassionate appointment nearly 25 years after the employee went missing, reiterating that such appointments are intended only to provide immediate financial relief to families facing sudden hardship.

The Court observed that compassionate employment is a “tailored exception” to the normal recruitment process and cannot be treated as a vested or perpetual right.

Stressing the principle of delay and laches, it held that claims raised after prolonged periods defeat the very object of the scheme, which is to help families tide over an immediate crisis caused by the loss of the breadwinner.

[Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.]

A Delhi court framed charges against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and 19 others for operating an organized crime syndicate.

Additional Sessions Judge charged Bishnoi under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), alongside the Arms Act and Explosives Act.

The 2021 case alleges that the gang executed murders, extortions, and kidnappings while operating from jails and international locations including Canada and the US.

Investigations revealed the use of smuggled mobile phones to coordinate activities and manage illicit wealth. The police contend the syndicate functioned systematically for pecuniary gain through continuous criminal intimidation.

[State v. Lawrence Bishnoi & Ors]

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union government regarding a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

The Bench observed that the petition raises issues of national importance, specifically questioning whether NIA officers qualify as police officers and their authority to register FIRs.

The petitioner argues that the Act violates the federal structure by encroaching on "Police," which is a State subject under Entry 2 of the State List. 

The plea contends that the Centre’s power to take over investigations without state consent undermines the constitutional distribution of powers.

[Sadik A P @Sadiq Ahmed & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court issued a stern warning to bar associations nationwide to implement 30% reservation for women in their governing bodies or face judicial suspension and fresh elections.

The Bench emphasized that non-compliance will not be tolerated. The Court directed Registrars General of all High Courts to identify non-compliant or reluctant bodies.

Modifying the fallback mechanism, stating that if enough women do not contest, nominations to meet the quota will be made by High Court portfolio judges in consultation with stakeholders.

The move aims to ensure uniform representation of women lawyers at all levels, including district and taluka bar bodies.

[Deeksha K Amrutesh v. State of Karnataka]

The Supreme Court held that a foreign judgment rendered through summary proceedings without a meaningful opportunity to defend is unenforceable in India under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Bench dismissed an appeal for the execution of an English Court decree, noting that the dispute involved contested facts and triable issues requiring a full trial.

The Court emphasized that summary adjudication in the face of significant documentary evidence violates principles of natural justice.

Clarifying that while prior RBI permission is not needed to initiate legal proceedings, it is mandatory before enforcing a decree involving foreign exchange. 

[Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.]

The NCLAT held that the NCLT is not a mere “counter signatory” obligated to mechanically approve a resolution plan passed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

It observed that where the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) appears suspect or suffers from serious irregularities, the Adjudicating Authority can reject the plan despite CoC approval.

The tribunal noted concerns, including alleged erosion of the corporate debtor’s asset value, disappearance of substantial liabilities, and failure of the Resolution Professional to conduct proper audits or disclose relevant facts to the CoC. 

In such circumstances, judicial scrutiny is permissible to ensure fairness, transparency, and compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

[Nimai Gautam Shah, Resolution Professional of M/s. Zep Infratech Ltd v. Raj Radhe Finance Ltd. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that a man cannot be directed to pay maintenance for a child when a DNA test conclusively proves he is not the biological father, even if the child was born during the marriage. 

The Bench held that while Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam presumes legitimacy, scientific evidence must prevail when the report is undisputed and final. 

The Court distinguished this from cases where DNA tests are sought routinely, noting that in this instance, the test was conducted with consent.

Despite denying maintenance, the Court directed Delhi’s Women and Child Development Department to assess the child's welfare and ensure her basic needs are met.

[Nikhat Parveen v Rafique]

The Patna High Court held that the EPFO cannot retain money deposited by an assessee once the underlying assessment order has been set aside, and must compensate the party by paying interest on delayed refunds.

The Court invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment, observing that retaining and utilising the amount for over a decade without legal basis was contrary to equity and justice.

It noted that although the assessment was set aside in 2011, the deposited amount was refunded only in 2023.

Upholding the Single Judge’s order, the Court directed payment of 6% simple interest on the delayed refund amount.

[The C.B.T./Board of Trustees (Central Board), Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr v. M/s The Longia Bidi Company, Barahdari]

The Supreme Court held that motor accident compensation must include the cost of prosthetic limbs and their lifelong maintenance to restore the dignity and mobility of amputees.

The Bench observed that a prosthesis is not a one-time expense but requires replacement, typically every five years.

Applying the principle of restitutio in integrum, the Court awarded ₹26 lakh specifically for the purchase and maintenance of seven prosthetic limbs based on the claimant's life expectancy.

The Court also rejected the use of lower government-notified rates, ruling that victims are entitled to reasonable private options that meet their functional medical needs.

[Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr.]

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Calcutta High Court order that had granted relief to Britannia Industries in an income tax dispute.

Refusing to entertain the challenge against the High Court’s ruling, the Apex Court allowed the interim protection in favour of Britannia to continue. 

While the detailed merits of the tax dispute remain pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to intervene at this stage. 

[Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/s Britannia Industries Ltd.]