The Delhi High Court has held that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the Centre’s decision to impound the passport of Yogesh Raheja, former Director of Raheja Developers, for allegedly not disclosing an FIR at the time of renewal.

The Court observed that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings unless a competent court has taken cognisance.

Since cognisance was taken after the impounding order, the action failed the test of reasonableness and natural justice. The impounding and appellate orders were accordingly quashed.

The All India Trinamool Congress has nominated Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy as its candidate for the upcoming Rajya Sabha elections.

If elected, she will become the first openly LGBTQ member of the community to serve in Parliament.

Alongside Guruswamy, the party has also announced the candidature of Rajeev Kumar, Babul Supriyo and Koel Mallick.

A noted constitutional expert, Guruswamy has represented the State of West Bengal and the party in several significant matters, including the SIR and IPAC-ED raid cases.

A former NCERT Senior Associate Fellow has moved the Supreme Court of India, challenging a passage in the Class 8 textbook Social and Political Life – III, prescribed since 2007, for allegedly portraying the judiciary in a distorted manner.

The plea follows the Court’s recent suo motu action over content in the new Class 8 book Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Vol. 2).

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant had earlier issued a contempt notice to NCERT authorities over references to “corruption in the judiciary.”

The present petition challenges a line stating that “recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher,” arguing that it presents eviction jurisprudence without adequate constitutional context.

[Dr Pankaj Pushkar v. UOI & Anr.]

Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna said press freedom in India may be legally guaranteed but can be economically constrained in subtle ways.

Speaking at the IPI India Award event in Delhi, she warned that the gravest threats to media independence may not stem from direct censorship under Article 19(2), but from economic regulations under Article 19(6).

She noted that ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising policies, taxation and antitrust regulations can indirectly influence editorial choices.

A media house may be legally free to criticise the government, she said, yet financially pressured in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday questioned a husband’s claim that he earns only ₹9,000 per month and cannot pay ₹12,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta remarked that such a salary was “difficult to swallow,” asking who earns ₹9,000 in present times.

The Court indicated it may summon the employer to verify the claim.

The matter stems from the wife’s plea seeking enhancement of alimony after lower courts awarded ₹6 lakh as full and final settlement. Orders have been reserved.

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products from using its “Spic” toilet cleaner bottle in a trademark dispute with Reckitt Benckiser India, maker of Harpic.

A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md Shabbar Rashidi held that the injunction was unwarranted at the interim stage.

The Court observed that the registered mark must be assessed as a whole and not merely by bottle shape, raising concerns about extending trademark protection to what may amount to an expired design monopoly.

The Bench directed completion of pleadings before the single-judge for a full hearing.

[Godrej v. Reckitt]

The Supreme Court recently rebuked a West Bengal judicial officer for filing a forgery case against his brother via a Magistrate instead of lodging a police complaint.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the action as the grossest abuse of juridical office, observing that the officer should be sent home. 

The Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings, noting that the judge leveraged his official status to influence a personal dispute.

Further emphasizing that judges must act as ordinary citizens in private matters rather than bypassing standard police procedures. 

[Jai Prakash Singh v. Nandlal Singh]

The Delhi High Court recently refused to stop the brand 'Baby Forest' from using its name, ruling that no company can claim a monopoly over the common word "Forest."

The Court upheld a previous decision, holding that a brand must provide stringent evidence to prove a dictionary word has gained a specific secondary meaning.

Following the anti-dissection rule, the Court compared the marks as a whole rather than focusing on a single word.

It found the packaging and logos distinct enough to prevent confusion for an average buyer and dismissed the plea for an interim injunction.

[Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim against Saregama India Limited in a copyright dispute over sound recordings of seven films, including Salangai Oli and Sankara Bharanam.

The High Court had held that the declaration of copyright ownership sought by Sreedevi Video Corporation was barred by limitation, but allowed the suit to proceed on the limited issue of injunction.

Saregama argued that once the declaration claim was time-barred, no injunction could survive as it was consequential to the title.

Accepting the plea for interim relief, the Court stayed further proceedings. The matter will be heard in April 2026.

[Saregama v. Sreedevi Video Corporation]

A Delhi court granted bail to Indian Youth Congress President Uday Bhanu Chib in a case arising from shirtless protests during the India AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam.

The Duty Magistrate at Patiala House Court rejected Delhi Police’s request to extend his custody by seven days and ordered his release on bail.

Chib was arrested after being taken into custody for questioning on February 23 in connection with alleged security breach and slogan-raising inside the venue. Police have arrested fourteen persons in the case.

A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that in POCSO cases, the absence of a definitive medical opinion or minor inconsistencies in a child’s testimony are not 'fatal' to the prosecution’s case if the core facts are proven.

The Court upheld a 10-year sentence, emphasizing that once the fundamental allegations are established by a credible survivor, the legal presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, applies.

The judge noted that medical evidence showing physical irritation and witness corroboration were sufficient, even without a specific medical statement confirming assault, as the child’s consistent account holds significant evidentiary weight.

[Pradip Prakash Baikar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.]

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has issued a new rules to protect air passengers in India.

Under the mandate, passengers can cancel their flight ticket free of cost within 48 hours of booking without any extra charges, provided the flight is at least 7 days away (domestic) or 15 days away (international).

Additionally, airlines are now mandated to process all refunds within 14 working days, whether booked directly or via travel agents.

The new rules also prohibit charging fees for name corrections made within 24 hours of booking, significantly reducing arbitrary charges and improving consumer rights in air travel.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate remedy in child custody disputes between parents.

In a case involving a child relocated from Thailand to India, the Court clarified that this extraordinary writ is intended for cases of illegal detention, not for settling matrimonial conflicts where the child's whereabouts are known.

The Bench emphasized that such disputes should be adjudicated by a competent Guardian Court under specific statutes.

Since the mother’s location was known and the child was not 'unlawfully detained' by a third party, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

[Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the uneven implementation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 across different States and Union Territories.

The Court noted that several states have not framed the rules required under Section 4 of the Act, which are necessary for Muslims to formally opt to be governed by Shariat law in personal matters like marriage, inheritance, maintenance, and guardianship.

This gap means the declaration process under Section 3 cannot work in many places.

The Bench has directed all States/UTs to report their status and compile a consolidated update before the next hearing scheduled on March 18.

[Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad & Anr.]