The Central Information Commission held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Reversing its 2018 ruling, the Commission noted that the board operates as a private autonomous entity registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, rather than a statutory body created by Parliament.

Observing that the government exercises no deep or pervasive control over the board’s management or finances.

The Commission clarified that performing public functions or receiving general tax concessions does not equate to substantial state financing. 

[Geeta Rani v. Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports & Anr.]

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, emphasized that the time has come for the judiciary to function like hospitals 24x7 to provide immediate relief and address the agony of the common man. 

Speaking at an event organized by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the CJI highlighted that technology and AI-driven infrastructure have ceased to be mere luxuries or administrative conveniences. 

Instead, they have become constitutional instruments essential for ensuring affordable and timely justice under Article 39A. 

While praising the judiciary's digital resilience since the COVID-19 pandemic, he cautioned that the digital transition must remain inclusive by expanding technological training and awareness in rural and tribal regions.

The Delhi High Court officially recognized GlaxoSmithKline’s pain and fever medicine brand, CALPOL, as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order in an infringement suit against Walter Healthcare, which was using the deceptively similar name "WALPOL".

Although the parties settled the main dispute, the Court independently evaluated the trademark’s status.

Citing CALPOL’s continuous commercial presence for over 35 years and sales surpassing ₹300 crore in 2024 alone, the Bench ruled that the brand has achieved immense reputation and distinctiveness, granting it high-level statutory protection against prospective market copycats.

[GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Walter Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has held that a company can still attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if a cheque issued before liquidation is dishonoured after liquidation proceedings commence.

The Court observed that criminal liability for cheque dishonour does not automatically extinguish merely because the company has entered liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

It clarified that the offence under Section 138 is completed upon fulfilment of statutory conditions following dishonour of the cheque.

The judgment reinforces that directors and companies may continue to face prosecution despite subsequent insolvency or liquidation proceedings.

[Raj Kumar Jain v. M/S Shree Balaji Enterprisies & Anr.]

The Rajasthan High Court has halted construction, mining, and expansion of tourism activities in the ecologically sensitive Jawai region to protect leopard habitats.

The Court directed maintenance of status quo in leopard corridors, hills, caves, and foothill areas, while prohibiting fresh tourism licences and continuing restrictions on safari operations.

A Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah also asked the State Government to consider declaring the region a wildlife sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

The Court observed that preservation of wildlife and ecological balance forms part of constitutional obligations under Article 21.

[Apoorva Agrawat v. State of Rajasthan]

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on the bail plea filed by Kashmira Sandip Pawar, who is accused of duping people by allegedly posing as an advisor to the Prime Minister’s Office.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter and sought the State’s response.

Pawar is accused of cheating individuals by falsely representing herself as a national advisor connected to the PMO.

The plea before the Court seeks bail in connection with the criminal proceedings pending against her in Maharashtra.

[Kashmira Sandip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra]

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice BV Nagarathna held that restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot override constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22.

The Court stressed that personal liberty and the presumption of innocence remain central to criminal jurisprudence.

The observations came while granting bail to a Jammu & Kashmir accused in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.

[Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu]

The Gauhati High Court has held that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of police witnesses if their evidence is found reliable and trustworthy.

The Court observed that there is no legal bar against relying only on official witnesses when their statements are consistent and inspire confidence.

It further ruled that failure to send the seized weapon for forensic examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case if other evidence sufficiently proves guilt.

The observations were made while upholding the conviction of an accused under the Arms Act, emphasizing that credibility of evidence outweighs the nature of the witness source.

The Delhi High Court has restrained unauthorised use of the popular “Bachpan Ka Pyar” hook line and related elements of the song by several YouTube channels.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted interim relief to Ivy Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., which claimed ownership rights over the song through an IP acquisition agreement.

The Court directed certain YouTubers to disclose revenues earned from allegedly infringing content and observed that continued unauthorised exploitation caused financial loss to the plaintiff.

The order was passed after the plaintiff alleged that multiple channels had used the hook line and music elements without permission.

[Ivy Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Singh & Ors.]

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an arrest may be considered prima facie illegal if the arrest memo and related documents bear an FIR number that had not yet been registered at the time of arrest.

The Court observed that mentioning a non-existent FIR number creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution’s version and procedural compliance.

Granting bail in an NDPS case, the Court emphasized that procedural safeguards in criminal law cannot be ignored, especially in stringent statutes like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

[Mursaleen v. State of Uttarakhand]

The Kerala High Court has granted a significant legal victory to a 28-year-old transgender man, allowing him to cryopreserve his eggs before completing his gender-affirming surgery.

Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen ruled that the petitioner can approach any Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) bank for preservation to safeguard his future reproductive choices.

The case arose after a private fertility center refused services, citing that the ART Act, 2021, only explicitly mentions "women" and "commissioning couples."

The Court emphasized that excluding transgender persons from such healthcare services potentially infringes upon fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and dignity under Article 21.

[Hari Devageeth v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court agreed to examine a petition challenging the UGC’s 2023 Student Grievances Redressal Regulations.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the 2023 provisions while declining to hear challenges to the older 2012 Regulations.

Represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, the petitioners argued that Regulation 3(f)(iv) is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15 because it limits discrimination complaints to specific categories like SC, ST, OBC, minorities, and women.

The plea also targets excessive sub-delegation, noting that the guidelines allow the Ombudsperson to determine penalties without a structured policy framework.

[Santhosh Tamilarasan & Anr. v. UOI & Anr.]

The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to produce two individuals, Aditya Anand and Rupesh Roy, who were arrested during a recent labor protest in Noida.

Hearing a writ petition alleging custodial torture, the Bench ordered their physical production on May 18.

Justice Nagarathna orally remarked that the individuals were merely demanding basic rights like minimum wages and should not be treated as terrorists, emphasizing that subscribing to a leftist ideology does not equate to criminality.

The Court ordered that they remain in judicial custody, blocking potential police remand, while noting serious procedural lapses in their initial arrests.

[Keshaw Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh]