The Allahabad High Court termed it “deplorable” that a detention order was passed nearly 10 months after the accused was already in custody, without recording proper satisfaction or application of mind.

The Court found the order arbitrary and illegal, noting that authorities failed to justify why preventive detention was necessary at such a delayed stage.

It held that such actions violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

The Court also criticised the conduct of officials, observing that it reflected serious dereliction of duty and disregard for legal safeguards in preventive detention matters.

[Amit Singh v. UOI & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court indicated it will pass an interim order to ensure Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh remains in Dibrugarh Central Jail, Assam, beyond the April 22 expiry of his National Security Act (NSA) detention.

The Bench heard the Punjab government’s plea to formally arrest Singh and continue his incarceration in Assam due to potential law and order risks in Punjab.

The Court proposed a virtual framework for legal proceedings, including remand and lawyer consultations.

While questioning the legal basis for long-term inter-state custody of an undertrial, the Bench noted it would make arrangements to maintain the current status quo.

[SSP Amritsar v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court sought a response from the Central government on a PIL requesting inclusion of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) under the National Policy for Rare Diseases, 2021.

The petition highlighted the absence of financial and medical support for patients suffering from this fatal neurological disorder, which is currently excluded from the policy.

The Court noted that while the policy provides financial assistance for certain rare diseases, SSPE has been left out due to the lack of definitive treatment.

It directed the Centre to clarify its stand, while also considering concerns around patients’ right to healthcare and the heavy financial burden on families.

[Mahadu Lahanu Belkar v. UOI]

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to actor Kartik Aaryan, protecting his personality rights against unauthorized digital exploitation.

The Court restrained various platforms from using actor’s name, image, and voice without consent, specifically targeting AI-generated deepfakes and chatbots mimicking his persona.

The Court observed that such content is "prima facie prejudicial" to his reputation and creates a false association that dupes the public. Intermediaries were ordered to delist objectionable material within 36 hours of notification.

This ruling reinforces that a celebrity's likeness has exclusive commercial value, which must be protected from AI-driven misappropriation to prevent brand dilution and privacy violations.

[Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Globe Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi over allegations that he concealed British citizenship.

The Court set aside a Lucknow court order that had earlier refused to direct an FIR and held that a prima facie case exists warranting investigation.

The plea, filed by a BJP worker, claimed that Gandhi had declared himself a British national while incorporating a UK-based company in 2003 and in subsequent filings. 

The Court directed authorities to investigate the allegations under relevant laws, leaving the matter open for further inquiry and possible action based on findings.

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause using the word "can" denotes a mere possibility rather than a binding obligation to arbitrate.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal against a Bombay High Court ruling, affirming that a valid agreement must clearly indicate a determination to refer disputes to arbitration.

The Court clarified that mandatory intent is an essential attribute; without it, the clause is not enforceable.

The Court emphasized that the specific language used in contracts is paramount in ascertaining whether parties intended to be bound by an arbitral tribunal.

[Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.]

A Delhi court has sought the Enforcement Directorate’s response to a plea filed by Jacqueline Fernandez seeking to turn approver in the ₹200 crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.

The application was heard by a special court, which issued notice to the ED and listed the matter for further hearing.

Fernandez, who has been named as an accused in a supplementary chargesheet, has expressed willingness to cooperate and become a prosecution witness.

The case involves allegations of large-scale financial fraud and use of illicit funds through hawala channels, with proceedings currently underway.

The Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which proposed increasing the House’s strength to 850 seats, as it failed to secure the required two-thirds majority.

While 298 members supported the Bill, 230 opposed it, leading to its defeat.

The amendment aimed to enable delimitation based on the 2011 Census and implement women’s reservation without waiting for the next census.

Following the failure, the Centre withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026, and related legislation. Opposition parties had raised concerns over potential imbalance in state representation and timing of the proposed delimitation exercise.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urged newly inducted Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) to personally draft their petitions rather than outsourcing them to Artificial Intelligence or external parties.

Speaking at an induction ceremony, the CJI emphasized that every pleading filed reflects the professional judgment and ethical responsibility of the advocate.

He cautioned that the role of an AoR is not a mechanical exercise but a primary point of accountability between litigants and the Court.

The CJI stressed that factual verification and sound legal framing are essential, warning against filing matters blindly based on third-party instructions. He noted that professional credibility, begins on day one.

The Supreme Court held that employees appointed without following due process, such as public advertisement, competitive selection, or interviews cannot claim regularisation of service.

It reiterated that such “backdoor entries” violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which mandate equality and fair opportunity in public employment. The Court emphasised that regularisation cannot be used to legitimise illegal or irregular appointments made outside the prescribed recruitment framework.

Even long years of service do not create a legal right to be absorbed if the initial appointment itself was not made in accordance with law.

The ruling reinforces the principle of transparency and fairness in public hiring.

[Madan Singh v. State of Haryana]

The Supreme Court approved a proposal to enhance the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) for commercial vehicles entering Delhi to combat air pollution.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant accepted recommendations from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to revise rates effective April 1, 2026.

The Court also mandated a 5% annual increase in the ECC to ensure the deterrent remains effective against inflation.

Emphasizing that non-essential commercial traffic should utilize peripheral expressways, the Bench noted the revision is "reasonable, just, and fair". The move aims to significantly discourage diesel vehicle entry into the capital.

[MC Mehta v. UOI]