The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a notice to the State Bank of India (SBI) regarding the post-retirement contractual appointment of its Legal Head.

The Court passed the order in a petition alleging that the appointment violates Ministry of Finance guidelines and constitutional principles of fairness.

The petitioner contends that the post is a "public office" under Article 12 and should be filled through a regular selection process.

The plea highlights that the officer, who retired in 2018, received extensions up to 2026 with compensation exceeding ₹2 crore annually, which allegedly blocked career progression for eligible serving employees.

[Raj Kumar Sharma v. UOI & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh’s plea for temporary release to attend the Budget session.

Amritpal Singh, detained under the National Security Act since 2023, challenged the government’s refusal of parole.

The Bench ruled that "national interests are paramount when compared with personal interests." The Court held that an elected representative does not possess a higher right to liberty than an ordinary citizen under Article 105 of the Constitution.

Emphasizing that even a minor doubt regarding a potential breach of public order makes individual liberty subservient to the sovereignty and security of the State.

[Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married man staying in a live-in relationship with an adult woman by consent does not constitute a criminal offence.

A Division Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena emphasized that social morality and legal principles must be kept separate, stating that courts are guided by the law rather than public opinion when protecting citizens' rights.

The Court granted protection to a couple facing death threats from the woman's family and restrained the police from arresting them in a kidnapping case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

[Anamika & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a CBI investigation into allegations that Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) unlawfully extracted natural gas from ONGC’s Krishna-Godavari Basin fields.

The Bench rejected the plea filed by activist Jitendra Maru, who alleged a "massive organized fraud" involving the migration of gas between adjoining blocks.

The petitioner cited reports that estimated the value of the extracted gas at over $1.55 billion.

While the Delhi High Court had previously set aside an arbitral award favoring RIL in 2025, the Bombay High Court declined to order a criminal probe.

[Jitendra Maru v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a CBI investigation into allegations that Adani Green Energy Ltd paid over ₹2,000 crore in bribes to secure solar power contracts.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam rejected the plea, which relied on a US Department of Justice indictment and SEC proceedings pending in a New York federal court.

The petitioner, Jitendra Maru, alleged an organized scheme to bribe officials in multiple Indian states to secure power purchase agreements at inflated tariffs.

The Court's detailed order explaining the grounds for dismissal is currently awaited.

[Jitendra Maru v. Central Bureau of India & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a writ of quo warranto cannot be used to challenge the appointment of a university professor or associate professor.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held that teaching faculty are university employees and do not hold "public office," which is a mandatory requirement for such a writ.

The Court noted that under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, teachers are not defined as "officers" or "authorities."

Consequently, the Court dismissed a petition challenging a 1996 appointment, stating the relationship is strictly one of employer and employee.

[Dr Kshamasheel Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh]

A Writ of Quo Warranto, meaning "by what authority," is a judicial tool used to challenge a person’s right to hold a substantive public office.

Unlike most legal remedies, any citizen can file this petition, even if not personally aggrieved, to ensure public positions aren't occupied illegally.

The court conducts a "judicial audit" of the appointee's eligibility, acting as a safeguard against nepotism or the "usurpation" of power in offices created by the Constitution or a statute. The writ is issued only when the office is of a public nature and the appointment violates mandatory legal requirements.

If the court finds the appointment invalid, the office is declared vacant and holder is ousted.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati.

The case involves allegations of sexual abuse of two minor boys at a religious camp in Prayagraj.

The petitioner, Ashutosh Brahmachari, argues that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and questioning the merits of the evidence at the bail stage.

The plea emphasizes that the gravity of POCSO offenses and the potential influence of the accused over witnesses necessitate a stricter application of bail principles.

[Swami Avimukteshwaranand v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

A Delhi court has acquitted former MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda, former Coal Secretary HC Gupta, and others in a 2012 coal scam case.

Special Judge Sunena Sharma ruled that the CBI "failed miserably" to prove allegations of criminal conspiracy regarding the Bander coal block allocation in Maharashtra.

The prosecution had alleged that AMR Iron & Steel Private Limited misrepresented financial facts and prior allocations to influence the Screening Committee.

However, the Court found an "absolute lack of evidence" of any illegal communication between the company and public servants, stating that the circumstances remained unsubstantiated.

[Central Bureau of Investigation v. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the suspension of a government teacher who mimicked Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a video regarding LPG price hikes.

Court observed that the suspension of Saket Kumar Purohit appeared to be a result of "suspension syndrome," passed in haste following a complaint by a local MLA.

The Court noted that the District Education Officer failed to consider whether a major penalty was likely, as required by state guidelines.

Emphasizing that suspension should not be a routine measure, the Bench held the order was prima facie arbitrary and lacked independent application of mind.

[Saket Kumar Purohit v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]