Bar Council of India has written to CJI Surya Kant seeking urgent intervention following an incident where Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court threatened a young advocate with 24-hour police custody.

The BCI highlighted that the judge's actions, were "grossly inappropriate" and had a "chilling effect" on the legal profession.

During the hearing, the advocate was pleading for grace with folded hands before being ordered into custody for a procedural lapse.

While the order was later rescinded following Bar Association intervention, the BCI is now seeking the judge's transfer and withdrawal of his judicial work.

A PIL has been filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the NCERT's decision to remove a map depicting the Maratha Empire at its zenith in 1759.

The petition was moved by descendants of Maratha royal families, contending that removing Figure 3.11, which showed territorial reach from Thanjavur to Peshawar, was unilateral and arbitrary.

They allege the move followed political pressure without proper expert review or consultation of historical records.

Seeking the map’s restoration, the plea argues that its removal violates students' rights to accurate historical education and ignores documented primary sources like the 1752 Mughal Ahadnama treaty.

[Raje Mudhojiraje Ajitsinghrao Bhonsle & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a highly qualified gynaecologist seeking interim maintenance from her neurosurgeon husband during divorce proceedings.

The Bench observed that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not intended to support spouses who voluntarily remain idle to burden their partners.

The Court noted that the wife possessed significant earning potential through her specialized expertise. Emphasizing that where a professional is capable of earning handsomely but refrains from doing so, courts can deny maintenance.

While spousal support was rejected, the husband remains liable for his children's monthly maintenance.

[Dr. Garima Dubey v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey]

Bombay High Court has cleared the way for UK-based doctor Sangram Patil to return to his duties with the National Health Service. 

The Court directed the modification of a Look Out Circular issued following an FIR involving allegations of spreading disinformation via Facebook posts directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders. 

The Court accepted undertakings from Patil and his parents, guaranteeing his cooperation with the ongoing investigation. Under the agreement, Patil must appear before the investigating officer within fifteen days of receiving notice.

Consequently, the State police agreed to modify the LOC, allowing him to travel internationally despite the pending probe.

[Sangram Patil v. Vilas Rane & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has directed the Union & State governments to strictly implement the "upward movement" policy for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).

The Bench clarified that candidates who qualify on their own merit, without availing relaxed standards, should be adjusted against unreserved vacancies rather than the reserved quota. This ensures that the horizontal reservation for PwBD does not limit the opportunities of meritorious disabled candidates.

The Court further noted that using a scribe or compensatory time does not count as a "relaxed standard."

Additionally, the Court tasked National Law University, Delhi, with overseeing the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

[Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Union Government’s request to adjourn hearings challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

S-G Tushar Mehta sought a delay due to his involvement in the Sabarimala reference. However the Bench declined, observing that the case is "more important than any other matter."

The petitions challenge the removal of the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, replaced by a Union Cabinet Minister.

Petitioners argue this grants the executive excessive control, undermining the independence of the Election Commission and violating the spirit of earlier judicial mandates.

[Dr. Jaya Thakur v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India to constitute an expert committee to examine the risks of using Artificial Intelligence in legal proceedings.

The Bench highlighted a concerning case where a trial court relied on four non-existent judgments generated by AI. The Court declared that citing "hallucinated" or fake judgments is not a mere error but constitutes professional misconduct.

While not seeking to prohibit AI, the Court emphasized the need for accountability and integrity, noting the risks of open-source algorithms.

The committee will help formulate guidelines to safeguard the judicial process from AI-driven misinformation.

[Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao]

During the Sabarimala reference hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised critical questions regarding the maintainability of Article 32 petitions that seek to set aside existing Constitution Bench judgments.

Addressing Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Bench emphasized the need for "judicial discipline," noting that the court cannot "change its colour" by entertaining new writ petitions against established rulings.

Justice Nagarathna expressed concern that disregarding prior Constitution Bench decisions via fresh PILs could create a chaotic precedent.

The court indicated that these procedural "decks" must be cleared before merits are discussed, highlighting the tension between constitutional challenges and judicial consistency.

In a sharp critique during the Sabarimala reference hearing, a nine-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the legitimacy of the original 2006 PIL.

The CJI remarked that the petition, allegedly based on sensationalist news reports, should have been "thrown outright in the dustbin."

The Bench expressed serious concerns over the locus standi of the Indian Young Lawyers Association, with Justice M.M. Sundresh calling it an "abuse of the process of law."

Justice B.V. Nagarathna further questioned how a juristic body could claim "freedom of conscience," labeling the case an example of "Publicity Interest Litigation" rather than a genuine pursuit of public interest.

The Orissa High Court clarified the distinction between “deputation” and “deployment” while allowing an intra-court appeal by a government employee.

The case arose when the employee, initially deployed under a government policy for technical work, was later ordered to be repatriated.

The Court held that deputation is typically temporary and does not create a right to absorption, whereas deployment under the policy was intended to lead to permanent absorption with a continuing lien.

It ruled that such deployment cannot be treated as deputation and quashed the repatriation order, directing continuation in the same post.

[Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors.]

The Telangana High Court set aside a Family Court order restraining a wife from approaching her husband during pending divorce proceedings, which was based on allegations of psychiatric disorder.

The case arose from a divorce petition where the husband claimed the wife exhibited abnormal behaviour and sought injunctive relief.

The Court found that the Family Court relied solely on such allegations without any medical evidence.

It held that findings of mental illness require expert proof and cannot be inferred from marital disputes, emphasising that courts are not equipped to make such determinations without specialised evidence.

[Rachana Reddy Cycum v. Adala Damodhar Reddy]

The Supreme Court of India held that candidates must possess the required educational qualifications on or before the last date of application submission, and not at a later stage, such as the interview.

The ruling came in a case where candidates applied for recruitment without having completed their law degree at the time but subsequently obtained it.

The Court set aside the High Court’s decision that had allowed such candidates to participate, emphasising that eligibility conditions must be strictly adhered to as per the recruitment rules and advertisement.

[Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors.]

The Supreme Court of India held that entry of a person’s name in the register of members is not mandatory to claim “membership” for initiating oppression and mismanagement proceedings under the Companies Act.

The case arose from a dispute where an investor, despite contributing funds and being treated as a stakeholder, was denied membership due to the absence of formal entry in the register.

The Court emphasised that such proceedings are equitable in nature and that membership can be established through conduct, investment, and recognition by the company.

It upheld the concept of “deemed membership” and dismissed the company’s appeal.

[Dr. Bais Surgical & Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dhananjay Pande]