Chief Justice of India Surya Kant cautioned that excessive judicial intervention can undermine the reliability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

Delivering the inaugural address at the 5th ICA International Conference, the CJI emphasized that courts must exercise restraint to preserve arbitral autonomy.

He noted that anti-arbitration injunctions should be confined to "exceptional circumstances," ensuring the system remains an "express highway" for justice.

While acknowledging the benefits of technology and virtual hearings, he warned against over-reliance on AI, asserting that the legitimacy of arbitration must remain rooted in impartial human judgment and expertise.

The Bombay High Court quashed the Election Commission’s notification for conducting a bye-election in Goa’s Ponda constituency, holding it contrary to Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Court clarified that the “remainder of the term” must be calculated from the date of declaration of results, not from the date of vacancy.

Since the newly elected candidate would have served less than one year before the Assembly term ended, the statutory bar applied.

Consequently, the Court held that the bye-election could not be conducted and set aside the notification issued by the Election Commission.

[Pritam Harmalkar v. Election Commission of India & Ors.]

The CESTAT held that tobacco pouches of small quantities (such as 4 grams and 9 grams) do not attract excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Tribunal noted that such small packages are exempt from the requirement of declaring Maximum Retail Price (MRP) under the Packaged Commodities Rules.

Since Section 4A applies only to goods assessed on the basis of MRP, its provisions cannot be invoked where MRP declaration itself is not mandatory.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that these tobacco products must be assessed under Section 4 instead, setting aside the duty demand raised by the department.

[M/s Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III]

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a minor girl voluntarily eloping with her lover does not amount to kidnapping in the absence of inducement, coercion, or active involvement by the accused.

The Court acquitted a 24-year-old man who had been sentenced under the POCSO Act, noting that there was no evidence to show he persuaded or forced the girl to leave her home.

It observed that the girl had willingly accompanied him and stayed with him without resistance or complaint.

The ruling reiterates that mere voluntary companionship, without proof of enticement, cannot attract criminal liability for kidnapping.

[Deepak Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh]

The Supreme Court ruled that a State cannot provide pensioners a lower Dearness Relief (DR) increase than the Dearness Allowance (DA) given to employees.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B. Varale held that since inflation affects both groups equally, such differentiation is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

The case arose from a Kerala government order granting a 14% DA hike to KSRTC employees but only 11% to pensioners.

The Court dismissed the State's argument regarding financial constraints, clarifying that while such issues might justify payment delays, they cannot justify discriminatory rates for the same economic purpose.

[The State of Kerala v. M. Vijaykumar & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant interim maintenance to a wife earning around ₹1.25 lakh per month, upholding the Family Court’s order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court observed that there was no significant financial disparity between the spouses, as their incomes were comparable and the wife had no dependent children. 

It noted that maintenance is meant to address financial need, not to create undue advantage.

Terming the plea as an “attempt to extract a pound of flesh,” the Court held that such claims cannot be sustained in the absence of genuine financial hardship.

[Smt. Neha Adlak v. Rahul Kawadkar]

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a child in conflict with law (CCL) accused in a murder case, holding that both the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Children’s Court failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting bail.

The Court observed that the bail plea was incorrectly considered under the CrPC instead of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which governs bail for juveniles.

It stressed that denial of bail must be supported by clear reasoning on how release would defeat justice.

Emphasising a child-centric approach, the Court directed that sensitivity be maintained, especially for children below 16 years.

The Patna High Court suspended the sentence of persons convicted under the NDPS Act after finding that the seized substances, Phenothiazine and Promethazine, do not fall within the definition of “narcotic drugs” or “psychotropic substances” under the Act.

The Court noted that these substances are instead covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and are not listed in the NDPS schedule or relevant notifications.

Observing that the conviction may be unsustainable, the Court held that the appellants had made out a strong prima facie case.

Accordingly, it granted suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.

[Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Connected Matters]

The Rajasthan High Court stayed proceedings against actor Salman Khan regarding alleged surrogate advertising for Rajshree Pan Masala.

The Court passed the order after Khan challenged a District Commission’s directive that restrained the ads and issued bailable warrants.

The complaint alleged that the "Rajshree Elaichi" campaign was a misleading front for pan masala, violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Khan’s counsel argued the actor only endorsed "silver-coated elaichi" and that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction, as misleading ads fall under the CCPA's domain.

The High Court has now halted the consumer proceedings and the warrants, seeking a response from the complainant by May 12.

[Salman Khan v. Yogendra Singh Badiyal]

The Delhi High Court ruled that restaurants in Khan Market with a capacity of fewer than 50 guests do not require a fire safety No-Objection Certificate (NOC).

The Court describing the heritage site as the "Shaan of Delhi" passed the order after eateries like Perch and Khan Chacha, challenged a mandate requiring the certificate for operation. 

The Court accepted the argument that these establishments do not qualify as "assembly buildings" under the Unified Building Bylaws 2016. While granting the exemption, the Bench mandated that restaurants must still adhere to all other safety protocols.

Furthermore, authorities must provide a 30-day notice before taking any coercive action for fire-related compliance.

Supreme Court recently reiterated that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right. 

The Bench clarified that these are purely statutory rights that exist only to the extent conferred by law.

The Court emphasized a clear distinction: while the right to vote allows for the exercise of franchise, the right to contest is an additional privilege subject to stricter qualifications and eligibility thresholds.

This ruling set aside a High Court judgment regarding Rajasthan's Milk Unions, affirming that societies can regulate candidacy through bye-laws without infringing upon voting rights.

[Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court slammed the Ghaziabad Police for an "insensitive and indifferent" investigation into the rape and murder of a four-year-old child.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant directed the Police Commissioner to appear in person, flagging severe lapses, including the failure to invoke POCSO charges despite medical evidence of sexual assault.

The Court condemned the local police for allegedly assaulting the victim's parents to force a case withdrawal and criticized two private hospitals for refusing life-saving treatment.

Questioning the suspicious custodial shootout, the Bench indicated that a court-monitored investigation by a central agency might be necessary.

The Supreme Court has transferred the investigation of a mother’s FIR against her husband, alleging sexual abuse of their 11-year-old daughter to the CBI.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan directed the agency to form a committee headed by a DIG-rank officer and a lady psychologist to ensure a sensitive probe.

The case stems from a bitter matrimonial dispute where the father initially secured custody, followed by the mother’s allegations under the POCSO Act.

Noting the child was being "tormented for no good reason," the Court stayed coercive steps against the husband while shifting physical custody to the mother.

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking to stop the screening of the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge during the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections.

The petitioner argued that the movie's perceived political undertones violate the Model Code of Conduct and disrupt the "level playing field" for candidates.

However, a Bench of Chief Justice SA Darmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan declined to intervene, dismissing the plea at the admission stage.

The film, starring Ranveer Singh, has become a massive box office success in 2026, prompting concerns from the petitioner about its potential to influence voters before the polls.

[Rakesh v. Chief Election Commissioner]