The Karnataka High Court stayed criminal proceedings against Deputy CM DK Shivakumar concerning a 2024 Facebook post allegedly containing morphed and provocative content against BJP leaders.

The Court passed the interim order on a plea to quash the FIR, which was registered following a private complaint.

The post, appearing on the INC Karnataka page, allegedly featured BJP leaders holding placards with altered text during protests related to the 1992 Ayodhya riots case.

The complaint alleged the post aimed to promote enmity and tarnish the image of senior leaders. The Court has now sought a response from the State regarding the matter.

[D.K. Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]

The Madras High Court observed that young men frequently face criminalization under the POCSO Act due to parental opposition to consensual adolescent relationships.

While setting aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years in prison, Justice N Mala noted that such cases often arise when girls are pressured by parents to initiate proceedings.

The Court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution failed to legally prove the victim’s age, relying on photocopies instead of original documents.

Further directing the Tamil Nadu government to conduct awareness campaigns to prevent the misuse of the Act in genuine teenage relationships.

[Mahesh v. State of Tamil Nadu]

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna cautioned law students against comparing their progress to "exaggerated" achievements on platforms like LinkedIn.

Speaking at the 22nd K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court Competition, she emphasized that growth in the legal profession is rarely linear and urged students to focus on sincerity rather than competition.

Justice Nagarathna highlighted that true excellence stems from patience, integrity, and independent thinking, advising a preference for natural intelligence over AI.

She further encouraged young women to challenge systemic barriers and urged all aspiring lawyers to treat pro-bono cases with the same diligence as high-profile matters to ensure meaningful legal impact.

Kerala High Court issued notice to Digi Yatra Foundation and the Central government following a PIL raising data protection concerns regarding the 'Digi Yatra' system at airports.

The Bench considered allegations that the collection and processing of sensitive passenger data may lack adequate safeguards.

The petitioner sought interim directions to ensure strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Additionally, the Court asked the Union Government to clarify if a Data Protection Board has been formally constituted under the new law.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 19, 2026.

[C R Neelakandan v. UOI & Ors.]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati.

The Bench overturned the 2019 CBI court order that had sentenced him to life imprisonment as the main conspirator.

However, the High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of the three other accused. Chhatrapati was killed after his newspaper published reports regarding the sexual exploitation of women at the Dera headquarters.

While the Dera chief has been acquitted in this matter, he continues to serve a 20-year sentence for separate rape convictions.

[Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. CBI]

The Kerala High Court is hearing a petition challenging the use of citizens’ personal data by the Chief Minister’s Office for sending bulk messages about government schemes.

Petitioners argued that the State has no free hand to repurpose data collected for government services, contending that such use violates the right to privacy.

The State defended the initiative as “transformative communication” aimed at informing people about welfare programmes.

However, the Court raised concerns over data protection and whether explicit consent had been obtained, observing that data held by the State cannot be used for political or unauthorised messaging.

The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law in Patiala has initiated a proposal to drop “Rajiv Gandhi” from its name and rebrand itself as National Law University, Punjab.

The move follows a resolution passed by the university’s Academic Council, which said the change would align the institution’s identity with other premier NLUs that typically carry the name of their respective states.

The proposal now awaits approval from the university’s Executive Council and subsequent legislative clearance from the Government of Punjab.

If cleared, the rebranding would mark a significant shift in the university’s 18-year institutional identity.

A Delhi District Commercial Court has ordered Akasa Air to pay ₹1.08 crore to a travel agent for illegally cancelling a group booking of 640 seats.

The court found that the airline committed a breach of contract by cancelling confirmed PNRs for the Delhi-Goa and Goa-Delhi sectors after already accepting part-payment.

The court rejected the airline's defense, ruling that once a contract is concluded through part-payment and PNR issuance, the airline cannot unilaterally cancel seats to sell them at higher prices.

The award includes a refund of the advance & lost profits for the agent.

[ABS Tour & Travels v. SNV Aviation Pvt Ltd.]

The Karnataka High Court reserved its judgment on a petition filed by spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar seeking to quash an FIR regarding alleged encroachment of government land in Bengaluru.

The Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) registered the case following a PIL alleging unauthorized construction on public land and storm water drains.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that no specific allegations exist against him and that he neither owns nor encroached upon the land in question.

Conversely, the State maintained that investigation should proceed. The Court extended the existing stay on the investigation until the final disposal of the petition.

[Sri Sri Ravi Shankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]

The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to 51 private hospitals in Delhi, including Sir Ganga Ram and Fortis Escorts, for failing to provide free treatment to patients from weaker sections.

These hospitals, which received land at concessional rates, are mandated to reserve 10% of Inpatient Department (IPD) and 25% of Outpatient Department (OPD) services for indigent persons.

The Bench observed that several facilities violated a 2018 Court order despite government directives.

Consequently, the Court appointed the Secretary of Health, GNCTD, as a Nodal Officer to oversee enforcement and warned that land allotments may be withdrawn if non-compliance persists.

[UOI v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust]

The Kerala High Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to allow the replacement of a former husband’s name with that of the biological father on a minor girl's birth certificate.

The Court observed that correction was necessary to ensure justice for the child and avoid future embarrassment.

While the Court criticized the biological parents for providing untrue grounds regarding school requirements, it praised the gentlemanly attitude of the mother's former husband, who consented to the change. 

The Court directed the masking of the identities of petitioners to protect their privacy and social identity, upholding the principle of parens patriae.

The Madras High Court criticized the State's failure to remove encroachments from 507 acres of temple land, observing that a deity’s lack of voting rights should not leave it remediless.

A Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi held that constitutional governance must not be subordinate to electoral expediency or organized resistance.

The Court noted that even after its 2018 directive, eviction was stalled by protests involving political leaders and legal professionals.

Invoking parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court ordered a comprehensive recovery report every three months and directed the disposal of related civil suits within six months.

[A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy IAS & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court quashed a trial court order that had permitted home-cooked food for actress Pavithra Gowda and others accused in the Renukaswamy murder case.

The Court observed that while human dignity must be protected within prisons, such concessions cannot be granted as a "matter of indulgence" without prior medical examination.

Emphasizing that indiscriminate grants could lead to administrative chaos. To ensure transparency, the Bench directed the digital publication of prison menus and the establishment of a formal food quality complaint mechanism.

Accused were granted liberty to file fresh petitions, provided they are supported by medical necessity and adhere to rules.

[State of Karnataka v. Smt. Pavithra Gowda & Ors.]