The Allahabad High Court directed all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to furnish district-wise and police station-wise data on privately held firearms, including details of licence holders and pending applications.

The Court also sought identification of licence holders with criminal history. Expressing concern over a growing “gun culture,” it noted that licensed weapons are often used to project power and intimidate others.

The Bench specifically flagged the display of firearms on social media, observing that such acts seek attention and reinforce a culture of dominance.

It emphasised that such practices undermine the rule of law and require stricter regulatory scrutiny.

[Jai Shankar Alias Bairistar v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a murder accused who had been in custody for over 9 years, holding that prolonged detention tilts the balance in favour of liberty under Article 21.

The Court noted that several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, indicating further delay in the trial. It emphasised that continued detention without timely trial violates the right to a speedy trial.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail.

It also noted inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and granted bail subject to conditions.

[Bhopinder Singh v. State of J&K]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that employees of cooperative societies cannot claim retiral benefits as a matter of right under the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997, declaring these rules ultra vires and unenforceable.

The Court noted that the rules were framed by the Registrar without authority under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and therefore lacked statutory force.

It further held that cooperative societies are independent entities governed by their own bye-laws and financial capacity, and cannot be compelled to provide benefits on par with government employees.

Consequently, writ petitions seeking enforcement of such benefits were held to be non-maintainable.

[Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. & connected matters]

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹7.5 lakh penalty imposed on a farmer for alleged illegal sand excavation, holding that mere presence of a JCB in his field and clay residue in its bucket is insufficient evidence.

The Court found that revenue authorities acted on assumptions without proper inquiry or proof.

It noted inconsistencies in official records and defects in the panchanama, including absence of date and lack of supporting material.

Emphasising principles of natural justice, the Court also observed that the farmer was not given a fair hearing. Calling the action arbitrary and harassing, the Court set aside all penalty orders.

[Gunaji Ramji Surnar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that mere abuse of a person belonging to SC/ST or simply uttering a caste name does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court clarified that, under Section 3(1)(s), the abuse must be by the caste name and in a place within public view to attract liability.

It also emphasised that the intent to humiliate on the basis of caste is a crucial element.

Finding no such prima facie evidence in the case, the Court held that the bar on anticipatory bail would not apply and granted relief to the accused.

[Santosha Devi v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that mere filing of an earlier arbitration-related plea does not confer jurisdiction for subsequent applications under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when the earlier plea was withdrawn without adjudication.

The Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be real and legally sustainable, not created artificially through procedural filings.

Rejecting a plea for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate, it held that the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ranchi courts, and prior proceedings in Delhi could not override this.

It also cautioned against attempts at forum shopping through strategic filings.

[SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) stayed a single judge’s decision granting Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits to employees regularised after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) cut-off date of April 1, 2005.

The Division Bench held that a single judge cannot override binding precedents set by coordinate (division) benches.

The State argued that the earlier ruling ignored established law and relied on judgments that had already been set aside.

Observing prima facie legal errors and serious implications, the Court stayed the order, emphasising adherence to judicial discipline and consistency in pension jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court held that the government cannot deny Pay Commission benefits by introducing conditions that are not part of the rules or recommendations.

The case involved denial of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Junior Engineers despite fulfilling the prescribed criteria. Authorities attempted to restrict eligibility by imposing an additional requirement related to entry-level pay, which was not part of the scheme.

Rejecting this approach, the Court emphasised that such conditions amount to rewriting the rules.

It upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, ruling that once the stipulated requirements are met, benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld.

[UOI v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors.] 

The Gujarat High Court has implemented a strict policy prohibiting judges and court staff from using Artificial Intelligence for drafting orders, preparing judgments, or any substantive judicial reasoning.

Framed under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, the policy fastens personal liability on judicial officers for any AI-assisted outputs, ensuring that technology does not replace human conscience.

While AI use is barred from evaluative tasks like assessing evidence credibility, it remains permissible for limited assistive purposes such as legal research and administrative automation, provided all results are verified against authoritative primary sources.

The policy further mandates strict data privacy, banning the entry of sensitive personal information into public AI tools.

The Allahabad High Court has flagged a "serious concern" regarding the consistent lack of proper assistance from government lawyers, which is reportedly hindering the administration of justice.

The Bench noted that state counsel often fail to provide timely instructions or case details. This inefficiency was attributed to a severe shortage of Class III and IV support staff within the State Law Office.

Directing the UP Subordinate Services Selection Commission to expedite the recruitment process for vacant positions.

Emphasizing that the Court cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for government responses, the Bench warned that such delays contribute significantly to case pendency.

[Subedar Yadav v. State of U.P & Ors.]

NCLAT ruled that insolvency proceedings against real estate firms should be confined to specific projects rather than the entire company. 

Modifying an order against Vatika Limited, the Bench held that "project-wise" resolution is essential to protect unrelated stakeholders & homebuyers. 

The dispute arose after Vatika defaulted on interest payments for debentures linked specifically to "Project Aspirations" in Gurgaon. The NCLAT noted that the NCLT erred by ignoring binding precedents that allow for localized insolvency.

While the default was confirmed, the process will now be restricted to the single project funded by the specific debentures to avoid collateral damage to the company’s other solvent developments.

[Surender Singh v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.]

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

Filed by National Council for Transgender Persons, the plea argues the law violates the self-identification principles established in the NALSA judgment.

Critics and LGBTQIA+ groups contend the amendment’s requirement for medical certification transforms an "inviolable aspect of personhood" into a State-mediated entitlement.

The legislation, which received presidential assent on March 31, has faced widespread backlash, including resignations from Council members and a withdrawal recommendation from a Supreme Court-appointed committee headed by Justice Asha Menon.

[Laxmi Narayan Tripathi v. UOI]

Pilots of the defunct Kingfisher Airlines have approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a direction to the court-appointed official liquidator to disburse their long-pending salaries. 

The Court directed the petitioners, Captain Mukesh Singh Shaktawat & Captain Desmond D’mello, to serve notice to the liquidator, scheduling the next hearing for April 8, 2026. 

Shaktawat, who served the airline for nine years, claimed dues amounting to approximately ₹1.39 crore.

Despite the liquidator finalizing the payable amounts in 2022-23 and the SBI-led consortium recovering nearly ₹14,000 crore from asset sales, the petitioners alleged that only provident fund money has been released so far.

[Mukesh Singh Shaktawat & Anr. v. Official Liquidator]