The Kerala High Court has notified comprehensive anti-sexual harassment regulations to address complaints within its premises, extending protection beyond employees to include lawyers, litigants, and visitors.

The framework, aligned with the Vishaka Guidelines, establishes a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) to handle complaints, ensure confidentiality, and promote awareness. It defines sexual harassment broadly, covering physical, verbal, and non-verbal conduct. 

The regulations aim to fill gaps in existing workplace laws by covering non-employee stakeholders and ensuring a safer environment.

The Chief Justice retains final authority, including recommending disciplinary or criminal action.

The Madras High Court held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used by a husband to secure the return of his wife if she has voluntarily left and chosen to live with another man.

The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is meant only for cases of illegal detention, not personal or marital disputes.

Since the woman was an adult acting of her own free will, no coercion or unlawful custody was established.

The bench clarified that such situations fall within the realm of matrimonial or civil remedies, not constitutional writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the autonomy and personal liberty of individuals.

[S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Procter & Gamble, restraining the use of the mark “LIVOGEM” for infringing its registered trademark “LIVOGEN”.

The Court held that the two marks are visually and phonetically similar, noting that the defendants merely replaced the last letter “N” with “M”.

It emphasised that in pharmaceutical products, even a slight possibility of confusion must be avoided due to public health concerns.

Rejecting the defence of honest adoption and common usage of “LIVO”, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement, though it declined relief on passing off at this interim stage.

[Procter & Gamble Health Limited & Anr v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Supreme Court ruled that consumer forums lack jurisdiction to adjudicate banking disputes involving allegations of fraud, forgery, or unauthorized pledges.

The Bench held that while a company can be a "consumer," complex factual disputes requiring detailed evidence must be tried in civil or criminal courts.

The Court noted that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature and ill-equipped for cases involving criminal wrongdoing.

Although the court clarified that parking surplus funds for interest does not automatically make a transaction "commercial," the serious nature of the fraud allegations in this case necessitated dismissal of the consumer complaint.

[Sant Rohidas Leather Industries v. Vijaya Bank]

The Kerala High Court held that intellectual disability resulting from a motor accident must be assessed based on its actual impact on a victim's life rather than mere medical percentages.

The Court observed that such disabilities affect intelligence and adaptive functioning, often requiring lifelong supervision.

In this case, the Court found that the 25-year-old victim possessed the mental age of a six-year-old due to a 2004 accident.

Consequently, the Court reassessed her functional disability at 100%, despite a lower medical board rating, and enhanced the compensation to ₹28.33 lakh to ensure financial support for her lifelong care.

The Supreme Court observed that certain digital platforms operate as "blackmailers," describing their actions as a form of "digital arrest."

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant made these remarks while hearing a petition seeking to regulate the police practice of posting photos of accused persons on social media.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that while mainstream media is largely responsible, many virtual platforms engage in blatant blackmail. The Court expressed concern over growing social media insensitivity and the "atomized" nature of online platforms.

The Court advised the petitioner to await state-framed guidelines on police media briefings before further proceedings.

[Hemendra Patel v. UOI]

The Supreme Court orally observed that a wife's alleged failure to perform household chores, such as cooking, does not constitute cruelty in matrimonial cases.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized that marriage involves a life partner, not a maid, and that husbands must also contribute to domestic tasks.

The Court noted that societal expectations have evolved, requiring mutual participation in domestic activities such as cooking and washing. These remarks came during a divorce plea filed by a husband who alleged mistreatment and refusal to cook.

The Court has directed both parties to appear in person for further proceedings scheduled for April 27.

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to remove an excerpt from an old NCERT Class 8 textbook that claimed recent court verdicts viewed slum dwellers as "encroachers."

The Bench observed that expressing a viewpoint or offering "healthy criticism" of a judgment is a right and the judiciary should not be oversensitive to it.

The Court noted that the textbook discussed the judicial structure holistically. An expert committee is already reviewing controversial content regarding judicial corruption.

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of as infructuous since the impugned textbook was from the 2015-16 academic year.

[Pankaj Pushkar v. UOI & Anr.]

The Gujarat High Court questioned the State’s prolonged inaction on a proposal to ban glue traps, used for catching animals and widely criticised for causing severe suffering to the animals. 

Hearing a PIL, the Court noted that the proposal had remained stuck at the stage of inter-departmental discussions for over seven months without progress.

Expressing concern over continued animal cruelty due to this delay, the Bench directed the Principal Secretary of the Home Department to file a personal affidavit explaining the inaction and steps taken.

The matter is listed for further hearing on March 27.

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking an investigation into wildlife imports by Vantara, an animal rehabilitation facility managed by the Reliance Group.

The Bench noted that a court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already cleared the facility of any domestic or international law violations in September 2025.

The Court observed that imports made under valid permissions cannot be treated as illegal due to subsequent objections. Further holding that relocating animals after lawful import could amount to cruelty.

Finding no merit in the allegations regarding CITES documentation, the Court refused to interfere with the settled environment of the animals.

[Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. UOI & Ors]

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav involving allegations of using snake venom at rave parties.

The Bench ruled that the FIR was legally unsustainable as the substance recovered did not fall under the NDPS Act's statutory schedule.

Regarding the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Court held that the FIR was invalid because Section 55 requires a complaint to be filed by a "duly authorized officer" rather than a private individual.

While quashing the current proceedings, the Court refused to grant a "clean chit" and allowed competent authorities to file a fresh, legally compliant wildlife complaint.

[Elvish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a petition filed by rapper Badshah, also known as Aditya Prateek Singh Sisodia, challenging directions issued by the Haryana State Commission for Women regarding his song 'Tateeree'.

The Court closed the matter after Haryana Police confirmed that the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the artist had been withdrawn as he had joined the investigation.

While an FIR remains registered under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the State assured the Court that no further coercive action would be taken based on the Commission's initial order for his arrest.

[Badshah v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to JioStar India by restraining Absolute Legends Sports from creating any third-party broadcasting rights for the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament.

The Court passed the order to prevent the "complete erosion" of the subject matter amid an ongoing dispute over media rights and unpaid dues.

The Court specifically interdicted the transfer of rights to Bluegod Entertainment Limited, noting that JioStar’s claims must be protected until the dispute is resolved.

While the matter was previously referred to mediation without success, the Court has now scheduled the next hearing for April 22.

[Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]