The Supreme Court questioned how sexual assault charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could be sustained in a 15-year live-in relationship involving a child.

The bench was hearing a plea against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed an FIR against the petitioner’s former partner.

Justice Nagarathna observed that walking out of a consensual relationship without a legal marriage bond does not automatically constitute a criminal offense.

While the petitioner alleged exploitation based on a false promise of marriage, the Court suggested mediation to secure maintenance for the child instead of pursuing criminal prosecution.

Arvind Kejriwal has announced a boycott of the excise policy case proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, citing a loss of confidence in impartial adjudication.

This decision follows the Court’s recent refusal to grant Kejriwal’s recusal application. In a letter to the Judge, Kejriwal invoked Gandhian principles of Satyagraha, stating he is prepared to face the legal consequences of withdrawing his defense.

The Court previously observed that seeking recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.

Kejriwal argued that the language of that dismissal further evidenced a conflict, making participation a "disservice to the judiciary."

[Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation]

The Supreme Court held that courts lack the jurisdiction to compel an accused to surrender before a trial court while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that if a court denies bail, it may do so, but it cannot mandate a surrender.

The Court emphasized that in complaint cases, police cannot arrest an accused unless a non-bailable warrant is issued.

This ruling came while hearing an appeal against a Jharkhand High Court order, with the top court noting that such unauthorized directions lead to unnecessary litigation.

[Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a Naib court constable accused of accepting a ₹150 bribe in 1991, questioning the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for conducting a raid inside a courtroom during active proceedings.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that the ACB conducted the trap "under the nose of the Magistrate" without seeking prior permission from the presiding officer or District Judge.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential "demand" for illegal gratification, noting inconsistent statements from the complainant.

Highlighting that suspicion cannot replace proof, the Court acquitted the accused of all charges.

[Ram Prashad v. State of NCT of Delhi]

Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni has moved the Karnataka High Court to challenge a trial court’s order sentencing him to life imprisonment for the 2016 murder of BJP leader Yogesh Gowda.

The appeal seeks to overturn the April 15 conviction and subsequent sentencing for criminal conspiracy and murder. Gowda was killed in his Dharwad gym, a case later investigated by the CBI.

Although the Supreme Court initially granted Kulkarni bail in 2021, it was cancelled in 2025 due to witness tampering allegations. 

Kulkarni has also requested a stay on the trial court's judgment pending the High Court's final decision.

[Vinay Kulkarni v. State of Karnataka]

Madras High Court Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari stated that law school curricula must incorporate Indic values and ancient texts such as the Arthashastra and Manusmriti.

Speaking at an NLIU Bhopal conclave, the Judge observed that many NLU graduates are disconnected from their cultural roots and are primarily focused on financial success.

He argued that teaching Indian history and philosophy is essential to foster maturity and a sense of duty.

Justice Dharmadhikari further emphasized that the "Indianisation" of the legal system, including the new Lady Justice statue, marks a shift from colonial-era punishment to a justice-oriented mindset for the common man.

Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court denied his anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of defamation and forgery.

The case stems from a press conference where Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan, wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets.

While Khera argued the proceedings are politically motivated, the High Court observed that custodial interrogation is necessary to identify the source of the allegedly forged documents.

The Court noted that dragging a private citizen into "political rhetoric" justified deeper investigation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

[Pawan Khera v. State of Assam]

The Rajasthan High Court recently reiterated that a written Power of Attorney (POA) cannot be revoked, altered or substituted merely through oral statements. The Court observed that any modification or cancellation of a POA must also be made through a proper written instrument.

The dispute arose after the respondent claimed that the POA granted in favour of the petitioner had been orally cancelled in 2022 and later replaced through another written document.

However, the Court noted that a written legal document cannot be overridden by verbal assertions alone.

The High Court emphasised that legal certainty and validity of documents require formal written revocation or alteration, especially in matters involving property and authority.

[Smt. Champa Devi v. Jogaram & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against industrialist Bina Modi, senior advocate Lalit Bhasin and security officer Surendra Prasad in connection with the alleged assault of Samir Modi during a 2024 board meeting of Godfrey Phillips India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order after the parties informed the Court that the dispute had been amicably settled.

Samir Modi, appearing through video conferencing, confirmed that he had withdrawn his complaint and had no objection to quashing of the case.

Delhi Police had earlier informed the Court that insufficient evidence was found against Bina Modi and Lalit Bhasin.

[Bina Modi v. State & Anr. & other connected matter]

The Allahabad High Court recently directed its Registry to stop using terms such as “court below” and “lower court” in official records and procedures.

The Court observed that such expressions do not reflect proper legal terminology and directed that the term “trial court” or the concerned designated court’s name should instead be used.

Justice Abdul Shahid passed the direction while hearing a matter under the SC/ST Act and referred to a 2024 Supreme Court observation stating that describing any court as a “lower court” goes against the ethos of the Constitution.

The Court accordingly asked the Registrar General to consider implementing these directions administratively.

[Mahesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

The Patna High Court recently held that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) is not merely an adjudicatory body with limited powers and can recall or restore appeals dismissed for procedural non-compliance.

The Court observed that dismissal of an appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, is procedural in nature and does not extinguish the statutory right to appeal.

The Division Bench further clarified that DRAT has powers similar to a civil court under Section 22(2) of the Act, enabling it to set aside default orders to ensure matters are decided on merits and complete justice is done.

[M/s Tirupati Storage & Allied Pvt. Ltd. v. UCO Bank]

The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a PIL seeking to rename the city of “Cuttack” as “Katak”, calling it a “publicity interest litigation” filed with a “sinister motive to gain popularity.”

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that decisions regarding renaming cities fall within the exclusive domain of the Government and courts should not interfere in such policy matters under Article 226.

The Court also noted that similar petitions on the same issue had already been dismissed earlier.

Finding no genuine element of public interest, the Court dismissed the PIL and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner.

[Srujeet Khuntia v. State of Odisha]

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the recommendations and reports of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act are mandatory in nature and not merely advisory.

The Court observed that once the ICC finds an employee guilty of sexual harassment, the employer or district officer must treat it as misconduct and proceed under the applicable service rules.

Justice Manish Mathur emphasised that the objective of the POSH Act is to ensure a safe and harmonious workplace, and therefore ICC proceedings must remain fair, transparent and free from external pressure.

The Court also quashed the suspension orders passed against ICC members, noting absence of proper reasoning and application of mind.

[Km. Sunita Devi v. State Of U.P.]

The Supreme Court recently encouraged mediation in the ongoing inheritance dispute between Rani Kapur and Priya Kapur over the estate and trust linked to late industrialist Sunjay Kapur.

A Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed that prolonged litigation may not be beneficial, especially considering Rani Kapur’s age, remarking that “80 is not the age to fight.”

The Court noted that the matter could turn into long-drawn litigation and advised the parties to attempt a peaceful settlement through mediation.

Rani Kapur has challenged the functioning of the family trust, alleging that she was unfairly deprived of control over family assets and estate-related interests.

[Rani Kapur v. Priya Sachdeva Kapur]