The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by laboratory technicians employed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking pay parity with laboratory technicians working under the Central Government.

The Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not automatic and cannot be claimed solely based on similar duties or job titles.

It observed that MCD recruitment rules prescribe matriculation as the minimum qualification, while Central Government posts require a Bachelor of Science degree, which constitutes a valid classification.

The Court further held that pay commission recommendations are policy matters and not binding on MCD.

[Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association v. UOI]

The Karnataka High Court set aside the disqualification of two Belagavi Municipal Corporation councillors accused of failing to disclose that their wives had won leasehold rights in a Public Works Department land auction.

The Court held that the auction took place in 2020, before the councillors were elected in 2021, and therefore no benefit was derived after assuming office.

Interpreting Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, the Court observed that disqualification applies only when a councillor gains a direct or indirect benefit during or after holding office.

Since the alleged benefit predated the election, misuse of official position could not be inferred. The disqualification orders were accordingly quashed.

[Shri Jayant Jadhav & Anr. v. Principal Secretary & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to strictly ensure that the name, parentage, or address of sexual assault victims is not disclosed in any status report or document filed before courts.

The Court issued the direction after noting that a status report in a POCSO case had mentioned the prosecutrix’s name.

Emphasising strict compliance with the law, the Court asked the Commissioner of Police to reiterate instructions to all SHOs and Investigating Officers.

The directions were issued while dismissing the bail plea of an accused charged with sexually assaulting a minor, observing that the allegations were serious and supported by the victim’s consistent statements.

[Vicky Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court held that the absence of an accused’s name in the FIR is not decisive while considering bail under the NDPS Act if the investigation reveals financial links showing active involvement in the offence.

The Court was dealing with a bail plea in a case involving the alleged trafficking of ganja in significant quantities. 

Rejecting the argument that no recovery was made from the applicant and that he was not named in the FIR, the Court noted that monetary transactions connected him with the co-accused, indicating coordination in the trafficking network.

The Court also considered the pendency of witness examination and the fact that a co-accused was absconding, and dismissed the bail plea.

[Pramod @ Parmal v. State (NCT of Delhi)]

The Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused under the POCSO Act, holding that although a minor’s consent has no legal validity, the romantic nature of the relationship and the prosecutrix’s age being close to 18 years are relevant factors at the bail stage.

The Court noted that the case appeared to arise from a consensual romantic relationship rather than violence, coercion, or brutality.

Relying on settled law regarding age determination through bone ossification tests, the Court treated the prosecutrix’s age as 17 years.

It further considered that all key witnesses had been examined and that the accused had remained in custody for over two years, tilting the balance in favour of granting bail.

The Supreme Court has held that prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required in cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants.

The Court clarified that Section 17A applies only to offences linked to decisions or recommendations made in the discharge of official duties.

Acts such as demanding or accepting bribes do not fall within the scope of official functions.

Upholding a Rajasthan High Court ruling, the Court further affirmed that State Anti-Corruption agencies are competent to investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees in such circumstances. 

[Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

A charge sheet is a formal report filed by the police after completing a criminal investigation. It sets out the allegations, details of the accused, and the evidence collected.

The charge sheet is filed before the jurisdictional court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court takes note of the report to decide whether the case should proceed to trial.

The Court observed that a charge sheet shows the investigation is complete and that sufficient material exists to prosecute the accused. It enables the Court to take cognizance and move the case forward.

If the police fail to file it within the prescribed time, the accused may seek default bail.

A partition suit is a civil action filed to divide jointly owned property among co-owners when they cannot agree on separation. It is commonly used in cases involving ancestral property or jointly purchased assets.

The civil court examines the ownership shares and determines how the property should be divided. The Court held that every co-owner has an equal right to possess and enjoy the entire property until partition takes place.

Co-owners can seek physical division or, where division is not possible, sale and distribution of proceeds.

Once a final decree is passed, each co-owner becomes the exclusive owner of their allotted share.

The Supreme Court criticised the ED and CBI for unexplained delays in probing alleged bank loan frauds worth over ₹40,000 crore involving ADAG companies.

The Court questioned why the CBI registered only one FIR despite multiple complaints from different banks, noting that each complaint constitutes a separate transaction.

It also directed an investigation into possible collusion by bank officials and urged both agencies to conclude the probe expeditiously.

During the hearing, Anil Ambani, through counsel, undertook not to leave India without prior court permission, which the Court formally recorded.

[EAS Sarma v. UOI & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court has stayed a ₹10 lakh penalty imposed on Flipkart by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for allowing the sale of walkie-talkies without mandatory licensing and regulatory disclosures.

Justice BM Shyam Prasad also stayed the direction requiring Flipkart to conduct periodic self-audits.

The CCPA had held Flipkart and Meta Platforms liable for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Flipkart argued that it acted merely as an intermediary and that compliance obligations lie with sellers.

Taking note of these submissions and product removals, the Court granted interim relief.

[Flipkart v. CCPA]

The Supreme Court has held that courts can extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after an arbitral award is passed beyond the statutory time limit.

Setting aside the Madras High Court’s view, the Court clarified that a belated award is unenforceable, but this does not curtail the court’s power to grant an extension.

Emphasising access, affordability, and expeditious dispute resolution, the Court restored the Section 29A application and directed fresh consideration.

[Velusamy v. Indhera]

The Delhi government has informed the Supreme Court that it will not implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 for the academic year 2025–26, effectively deferring its operation till 2027.

The decision follows the Court’s concern over the hurried mid-session implementation of the law. 

While private schools welcomed the pause as a pragmatic step, parents’ groups stressed that unchecked fee hikes remain a concern and demanded financial audits and transparency.

The government clarified that the law remains valid and will be enforced after addressing procedural difficulties.

The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing punitive demolitions of properties linked to accused persons despite the Supreme Court directions prohibiting such actions.

The Court noted instances where demolition notices were issued immediately after registration of offences, raising concerns under Articles 14 and 21 and the doctrine of separation of powers. 

To address this, the Bench framed five key questions on compliance with Supreme Court guidelines, misuse of executive discretion, the State’s duty as parens patriae, and citizens’ right to approach courts on reasonable apprehension of demolition.

Police protection was also directed for the petitioners.

[Faimuddeen & 2 Ors. v. State of UP & 7 Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of several Class-III employees working in District Courts, holding that their removal after more than 22 years of service was legally unsustainable.

The Division Bench held that the appointments made in 1994-95 were not illegal or void from the beginning, but only procedurally irregular, and such irregularities stood cured due to long and continuous service.

The Court noted that no statutory recruitment rules existed at the time, and the Medical Examination Rules were adopted only in 1996.

The Court ruled that long-standing appointments cannot be disturbed in the absence of fraud, directed reinstatement, but denied back wages.

[Mohd. Shamim & Ors v. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]