A Delhi court has ordered the Aam Aadmi Party and leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj and Ankush Narang to remove defamatory social media posts targeting BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.

The Court issued an interim injunction regarding a video titled "BJP Drama Company," which alleged that Swaraj faked her detention during a protest by intentionally holding a police officer's hand.

Swaraj clarified she was holding the hand of Union Minister Raksha Khadse in solidarity. The court ruled that Swaraj established a prima facie case, stating that her reputation would suffer irreparable harm if the edited content remained online.

The matter is listed for further hearing on May 15.

[Bansuri Swaraj v. Saurabh Bharadwaj & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) cannot shield individuals who instigate false sexual harassment complaints by labeling them "unknown sources."

The Court held that once an ICC relies on a complainant’s retraction, it must include the name of any person identified as the instigator.

In this case, a clerk retracted her allegations, naming her principal as the person who coerced her into filing the complaint to defame a colleague. The Court modified the ICC’s report to specifically name the principal, noting that anonymizing him was a jurisdictional error.

While POSH Act penalties apply to complainants, the accused remains free to pursue separate legal action against the instigator.

The Supreme Court has clarified that an appellate court maintains the power to reverse or modify a conviction even if the accused has not explicitly filed a challenge.

The Bench held that under Section 386 CrPC, the interests of justice empower the court to examine the correctness of any finding or sentence. 

The ruling came during an appeal by the State of Assam regarding a murder-rape case.

The Court extended an acquittal to include charges of destroying evidence, ruling that the absence of a formal appeal by the respondent does not denude the court of its jurisdiction to correct legal errors.

[The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu]

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) informed the Supreme Court that there is no restriction on women entering mosques to offer namaz.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, clarified that while congregational prayer is mandatory for men, it is optional for women. He noted that the Prophet himself instructed not to stop women from visiting mosques.

However, Shamshad argued that the "Essential Religious Practice" (ERP) test has been wrongly applied to Islam by Indian courts, often relying on inaccurate translations.

He highlighted contradictions in previous judgments, such as the ruling that a mosque is not essential to Islam.

A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for social media posts targeting Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande and other women employees.

Court observed that the tweets prima facie constitute "sexually coloured remarks" under Section 75(3) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The court emphasized that a police investigation is necessary to verify the "X" account and recover the electronic devices used.

This criminal order follows a separate ₹2 crore civil defamation suit in the Delhi High Court, where Mitra had previously been rapped for his derogatory language.

[Manisha Pande & Ors. v. Abhijit Iyer Mitra]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that High Courts do not possess the authority to appoint arbitrators in international commercial disputes.

The Bench held that when a foreign entity is involved, the power of appointment vests exclusively with the CJI or their designate as per the Arbitration Act.

Setting aside an award involving a Korean firm, the Court declared the proceedings "void ab initio" as the arbitrator was originally appointed by the High Court.

The Bench emphasized that such jurisdictional defects go to the root of the matter and cannot be cured by the parties' consent or their participation in the arbitration.

[Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. SB Engineering Associates]

The Supreme Court held that no court can compel a woman, especially a minor, to continue with an unwanted pregnancy merely because the child could later be given up for adoption.

Allowing a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her over seven-month pregnancy, the Court emphasized that the pregnant woman’s choice and reproductive autonomy must remain paramount.

It observed that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term would inflict grave mental, emotional, and physical trauma and violate her rights under Article 21.

The Court further noted that reproductive decisions are integral to bodily autonomy, dignity, privacy, and personal liberty under the Constitution.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that conviction for trivial offences committed during juvenility cannot be used to deny employment in defence services.

Upholding the order directing appointment of a candidate selected for the post of Soldier (General Duty), the Court emphasised the rehabilitative and beneficial object of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

It noted that the candidate’s offences; using obscene language, minor assault, and criminal intimidation, were petty in nature and resulted only in a fine imposed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

The Court observed that juvenile records, unless covered by statutory exceptions, should not operate as a lifelong disqualification or hinder reintegration into mainstream society.

[UOI & Ors. v. Pushpraj Singh]

The Bombay High Court observed that denial of Child Care Leave (CCL) defeats not only the rights of a working mother but also the child’s right to maternal care, comfort, and support. 

Emphasising the welfare-oriented object behind the CCL policy, the Court held that such provisions are intended to protect motherhood and ensure that women are not disadvantaged in employment due to caregiving responsibilities.

It noted that authorities cannot reject requests for Child Care Leave in a mechanical or arbitrary manner without adhering to the governing policy framework.

Stressing the importance of maternal presence during crucial stages of a child’s life, the Court directed proper reconsideration of the leave request.

[Shri Valencio D’Souza v. The Director]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a Family Court order allowing the father to remain the primary caregiver of a minor child.

It noted that the mother was residing in a PG accommodation and had not demonstrated a reliable caregiving arrangement during her working hours.

The Court observed that the father lived in a joint family setup with adequate support, including family members, a nanny, and domestic help, providing greater stability for the child.

Emphasising that child custody matters must be decided on the basis of the child’s welfare and best interests, the Court nevertheless expanded the mother’s visitation rights and directed both parents to jointly participate in the child’s upbringing.

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the growing drug menace in schools and colleges, observing that educational institutions are increasingly coming under a “drug siege.”

The Court warned that narcotics peddlers are actively targeting campuses and, in several instances, using students themselves as drug sellers to expand illegal networks.

Stressing the alarming impact of substance abuse on young minds and public health, the Court underscored the need for immediate and coordinated preventive measures by authorities.

It highlighted the importance of safeguarding educational spaces from criminal exploitation and ensuring stricter enforcement mechanisms to curb the spread of drugs among students.

The Bombay High Court held that service records of employees constitute “personal information” exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

Setting aside an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of a police officer’s service records, the Court observed that information relating to service history, promotions, and related employment matters falls within the protected sphere of privacy between employer and employee.

It further emphasised that authorities must follow the safeguards under Section 11 of the RTI Act before directing disclosure of third-party information.

[Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar v. Balaji Pandharinath Thorat & Ors.]

The Supreme Court expressed satisfaction over the record 91.78% voter turnout and the lack of violence during the first phase of the West Bengal assembly elections.

The Bench remarked that such high participation strengthens India's democratic setup. The Court was hearing petitions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

While celebrating the peaceful polls, the bench noted with concern that appellate tribunals have disposed of only 136 out of 27 lakh filed voter appeals.

The Court granted liberty to approach the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to expedite these hearings, ensuring urgent attention for those whose names were excluded.