Arvind Kejriwal filed a fresh affidavit before the Delhi High Court seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.

He stated that the judge’s son and daughter are empanelled as Central government counsel and receive regular case assignments.

Kejriwal argued that since the Solicitor General, appearing against him, plays a role in allocating such work, it creates a “reasonable apprehension” of conflict of interest.

He clarified that he is not alleging actual bias, but emphasized that even the appearance of lack of impartiality is sufficient to seek recusal.

The Karnataka High Court refused to impose an immediate ban on tiger safaris in the State while hearing a plea seeking their prohibition in critical tiger habitats.

The Court directed the State government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the demarcation of core, buffer, and tourism zones, along with maps and locations where safaris are conducted.

It noted that safaris are generally permitted only in buffer or designated tourism zones, not core areas, but questioned whether violations actually exist.

The plea raised concerns about conservation norms and human-wildlife conflict, but the Court chose to examine facts before taking any restrictive action.

The Delhi High Court imposed costs on a Gujarat-based NGO, Justice on Trial, for repeatedly seeking adjournments in its ₹10,000 crore defamation suit against the BBC over its documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Court noted that despite being given a “last opportunity” earlier to argue on the maintainability of the case, the NGO continued to delay proceedings citing engagement of counsel.

Taking note of these repeated delays, the Court imposed costs and granted one final opportunity, making it clear that such conduct cannot be allowed to prolong litigation unnecessarily.

[Justice on Trial v. BBC]

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended that four additional judges of the Telangana High Court be appointed as permanent judges. The decision was taken in a meeting held on April 14, 2026.

The judges include Justices Yara Renuka, Nandikonda Narsing Rao, E. Tirumala Devi, and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, who were appointed as additional judges in 2025.

The recommendation aims to strengthen the High Court, which is currently functioning with significant vacancies against its sanctioned strength.

The proposal will now be sent to the Central government for final approval and notification under the constitutional appointment process.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of three judicial officers as judges of the Karnataka High Court. The decision was taken in its meeting held on April 14, 2026.

The officers include Rajeshwari Narayana Hegde, Kedambadi Ganesh Shanthi, and Mahadevappa Brungesh, all from the district judiciary. Their elevation is part of ongoing efforts to fill vacancies and improve the functioning of High Courts.

Currently, the Karnataka High Court is operating with a significant gap between its sanctioned and working strength.

The recommendations will now be sent to the Central government for final approval and appointment.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of advocates Preeta Aravindan Krishnamma and Liz Mathew Anthraper as judges of the Kerala High Court.

The decision was taken in its meeting held on April 14, 2026. Liz Mathew is a Senior Advocate practicing before the Supreme Court, with prior experience working under Justice Indu Malhotra and former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.

The recommendation aims to fill vacancies in the Kerala High Court, which is currently functioning below its sanctioned strength.

The proposal will now be sent to the Central government for final approval and appointment under the constitutional process.

The Delhi High Court recorded an undertaking from filmmaker Rajeev Rai, owner of Trimurti Films, stating he will not speak to the media regarding the Dhurandhar 2 song dispute while mediation is pending.

The Court noted that Rai had made several public comments on the case's merits despite the matter being referred to mediation.

Emphasizing that litigants must exercise restraint on sub judice issues to avoid derailing the resolution process.

The dispute involves allegations that the song Rang De Lal in Dhurandhar 2 unauthorizedly uses the musical composition of Tirchi Topiwala from the film Tridev.

[Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court announced it will order the removal of online content infringing the personality rights of actor Kartik Aaryan, including unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name and image.

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the actor’s persona was being misused to sell merchandise and through AI-generated videos, some of which were described as scandalous.

Aaryan’s lawsuit against various e-commerce and social media platforms sought a permanent injunction against the use of his likeness, voice, and trademarked name without consent.

The Court indicated it would grant relief allowing the actor to point out infringing content for immediate takedown by intermediaries.

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

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to remove unauthorized video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal arguing his recusal application before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Court officials confirmed that the recording and publishing of court proceedings violate high court rules on online hearings.

The action follows the viral spread of footage from April 13, where Kejriwal argued for over an hour seeking the judge's recusal from the excise policy case.

The Court emphasized that it consistently takes cognisance of such breaches across all social media platforms to maintain judicial decorum.

[CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court rejected Abu Salem’s plea seeking remission of his sentence and early release, holding that he has not yet completed the required 25-year imprisonment period.

Salem, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, argued that he had already served the term by including remission and time spent as an undertrial.

However, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, which clarified that remission would apply only after completion of 25 years of actual imprisonment, expected in 2030.

Since this period is still incomplete, the Court dismissed his plea as premature.

[Abu Salim Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Sikkim High Court ruled that no law prohibits the media from disclosing the name of an accused person while reporting on an FIR. 

The Court emphasized that crime reporting is a fundamental duty of the press as the "fourth pillar of democracy" and does not constitute a "media trial" if the reporting is fair and accurate.

The Court noted that since the Supreme Court mandates uploading FIRs to public websites, restricting the publication of an accused's name would render that mandate useless.

While the name of the accused can be disclosed, the Court clarified that the identity of the victim must remain strictly confidential.

[Rabden Sherpa v. State of Sikkim]

The Supreme Court has ruled that spouses cannot unilaterally withdraw from a mutual divorce settlement once a comprehensive agreement is reached through mediation.

The Bench clarified that while the law typically allows for the withdrawal of consent before a final decree, this right cannot be used to bypass obligations in a "full and final" settlement of disputes.

Emphasizing that resiling from mediated terms attacks the foundation of the mediation process and should be met with heavy costs.

The Court quashed subsequent domestic violence proceedings and dissolved the 24-year marriage under Article 142, citing irretrievable breakdown.

[Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi]