The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case involving actor Rajpal Yadav after he failed to settle outstanding dues with M/s Murli Projects Private Limited.

The Court expressed frustration over contradictory submissions made by Yadav and his counsel regarding the payment of approximately ₹7.75 crore.

Although Yadav sought an additional 30 days to pay ₹6 crore for a one-time settlement, the Court denied the extension, stating that repeated assurances had not been met.

Previously, Yadav served jail time after failing to comply with earlier settlement orders before receiving an interim suspension of his sentence.

[M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajpal Yadav]

The Madras High Court held that the Governor is constitutionally bound by the State Cabinet's aid and advice regarding the premature release of convicts under Article 161.

The Bench clarified that the Governor cannot exercise independent discretion or reject recommendations for remission, regardless of personal agreement with the advice.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Maru Ram and AG Perarivalan, the Court emphasized that the Governor acts as a constitutional head and must follow the elected government's decision.

The Court noted that any challenge to such Cabinet decisions must be addressed through judicial review rather than gubernatorial override.

[Eswaran v. State of Madras & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court awarded over ₹152 crore in damages to Communication Components Antenna (CCA) after finding the Rosenberger Group guilty of infringing a patent related to asymmetrical beam antenna technology.

Justice Prathiba M Singh issued a permanent injunction against the German-based group, restraining them from selling or promoting infringing antennas used in 4G LTE networks.

The Court found that Rosenberger’s products, marketed to providers like Reliance Jio, near-identically matched CCA’s proprietary beam patterns designed to increase network capacity.

Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893, directing the registry to issue a formal certificate of validity.

[Communication Components Antenna v. Rosenberger]

The Supreme Court dismissed the Income Tax Department’s appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings against RRPR Holdings Private Limited, NDTV's holding company.

The Bench dismissed the Revenue's plea primarily on the ground of delay. The dispute involved the 2009–10 assessment year, where tax officers attempted to disallow over ₹66 crore in expenses linked to minimal exempt income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal previously ruled that such disallowances cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

The High Court held this finding binding, striking at the root of the reassessment.

[Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. RRPR Holdings Pvt. Ltd.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice to the Union of India, Meta, and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) regarding a plea filed by a journalist.

The journalist challenged the removal of his Facebook pages, which had over 3.24 lakh followers, following multiple copyright strikes initiated by AAP.

He alleged that the party used intellectual property claims, including those over the Chief Minister’s public photos, to silence critical reporting.

The Bench noted the contention that a public official's image should not be treated as private property to restrict press freedom. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for July 27.

[Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal v. UOI]

The Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh Home Secretary regarding the failure of the police to use titles like "Hon'ble" or "Mr" before a Union Minister's name in an FIR.

The Bench noted that even if a complainant omits such titles in a written report, the police are duty-bound to maintain protocol when drafting the formal FIR.

The Minister is not an accused in the case, which involves allegations of criminal intimidation and a ₹80 lakh job fraud.

The Court emphasized that proper decorum must be maintained in official legal documents.

[Harshit Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the registration of a suo motu criminal contempt petition against BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak for attempting to influence a judge regarding a pending case.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed that Pathak’s conduct prima facie amounts to criminal contempt.

The action follows an incident in September 2025, where Justice Vishal Mishra recused himself after Pathak allegedly tried to contact him by phone to discuss a writ petition involving illegal mining allegations.

The Court has scheduled the contempt matter for hearing on April 6, 2026.

[Ashutosh Dixit v. Economic Offences Wing & Ors]

A Delhi court granted bail to 34-year-old Mujahid Jamal Shaikh, who was accused of posting an AI-morphed image depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowing to actor Shah Rukh Khan.

Additional Sessions Judge of the Patiala House Courts noted that the accused has deep roots in society and no prior criminal record.

The Court observed that since the evidence is primarily electronic and the petitioner's mobile phone is already seized, there is no risk of evidence tampering.

While the Delhi Police allAn eged the post could promote disharmony, the Court prioritized procedural cooperation and ordered an inquiry into the authenticity of certain arrest documents.

[State of Delhi v. Mujahid Jamal Shaikh]

The Uttarakhand High Court granted interim relief to a 15-year-old boy booked in a kidnapping and sexual assault case involving a girl of the same age.

Justice Alok Mahra stayed proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, noting that the relationship appeared consensual.

The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents advocating for leniency in adolescent relationships where no force is involved. Defense counsel argued that the girl voluntarily invited the boy to her house and medical evidence showed no signs of coercion.

The Court observed that detaining the minor in an observation home could adversely impact his future prospects.

[State of Uttarakhand v. Minor Accused]

The Delhi High Court has ordered a blanket ban on the song "Volume 1" by Yo Yo Honey Singh and Badshah, directing the Central government and social media intermediaries to ensure its immediate removal.

The Court stated that the song’s "deeply vulgar" and "dehumanising" lyrics shocked the "conscience of the court to its absolute core."

The Court ruled that the track lacks artistic value and normalizes the treatment of women as objects for sexual gratification.

The mandate extends to remixes and snippets. This order grants liberty to the petitioners to flag any surfacing URLs for rapid government takedown.

[Hindu Shakti Dal & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Rajasthan High Court issued a clarificatory order deleting certain earlier remarks made on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and replacing them with fresh observations.

The Court clarified that its main judgment must be complied with in accordance with the legal position existing at the time of the ruling.

The case arose from a plea challenging a 2023 Rajasthan notification classifying transgender persons as OBC.

While earlier observations had criticised the amendment’s impact on self-identity rights, the revised order limits such remarks and stresses that any policy framework must remain within the contours of prevailing law.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that while a murderer might be reformed, cyber criminals should not be spared due to their persistent nature.

While hearing a bail plea for an accused with a history of cyber fraud, the CJI suggested such offenders be kept in isolation without access to mobile phones to prevent further crimes.

The Bench was dealing with a challenge against an Allahabad High Court order denying bail to Suraj Srivastav.

Srivastav allegedly cheated an individual of ₹6.55 lakh through a fraudulent part-time job scheme involving multiple linked UPI transactions.

[Suraj Srivastav Alias Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

A Mumbai Small Causes Court judge recently filed a police complaint after being defrauded of ₹93,000 by a cybercriminal posing as a Samsung customer care executive.

The judge, seeking help for a display issue, contacted a number found via a Google search.

The fraudster instructed the judge to download an application file (APK) and transfer ₹20 to "verify" the service request. Shortly after, unauthorized transactions totaling ₹93,000 were diverted from the judge’s bank account to a third-party wallet.

This incident follows similar high-profile scams targeting judicial officers, highlighting the rising risks of phishing and malicious software.

The Supreme Court recently imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Union Government for pursuing "unnecessary litigation" against a CISF constable.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the Centre's appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had reinstated the constable following his dismissal for an 11-day unauthorized absence.

The Court criticized the Government for contributing to judicial pendency, labeling it the "biggest litigant."

Justice Nagarathna remarked that the Union should have accepted the High Court's relief rather than filing a meritless appeal, highlighting that such actions contradict public concerns regarding the backlog of cases.

[UOI v. Sukhwinder Singh]