The Delhi High Court recently set aside an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that cast doubts on the mental health of a senior scientist from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that judicial bodies must exercise restraint, as adverse remarks can have lasting "socio-personal effects."

The Court found it "most unfortunate" that the Tribunal suggested a medical examination for mental disability and refused the petitioner's request to engage a lawyer.

The matter has been remanded to the CAT for a fresh decision on merits within three months.

[D.C. Mishra v. UOI & Ors.]

A Delhi court criticised the police for making “no serious effort” to trace two community dogs, Kaddu and Brownie, who went missing from Indira Gandhi International Airport.

The Court found the investigation inadequate and noted that despite repeated complaints, authorities failed to determine the dogs’ whereabouts even after over a month.

CCTV footage showed a person linked to a contractor allegedly luring a dog into a vehicle and taking it out of the airport, but no concrete follow-up was done.

Observing clear lapses, the Court directed a fresh probe by a senior police officer to ensure accountability and proper investigation.

[Rashim Sharma v. GMR Airports Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court held that a husband’s income tax returns cannot be disclosed to his wife under the Right to Information Act in matrimonial disputes, terming them “personal information.”

The Court set aside a Central Information Commission order that had directed disclosure of the husband’s income details. It observed that such disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy and is protected under the exemption for personal information.

The Court further clarified that matrimonial disputes are private in nature and do not qualify as “larger public interest.”

It added that financial disclosures can instead be sought through appropriate legal proceedings.

[Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO Income Tax Officer Moradabad & Anr.]

The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to reconsider the confirmation and promotion of a Sub-Inspector whose advancement was withheld due to a pending investigation, despite no chargesheet being filed.

The Court held that mere pendency of an inquiry or suspicion cannot be a valid ground to deny promotion. Relying on settled legal principles, it reiterated that such benefits can be withheld only after issuance of a formal chargesheet or initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Since the investigation had not reached that stage, the denial of promotion was found unjustified.

The Court accordingly ordered reconsideration of the officer’s case in accordance with law.

[Smt. Dipali Baruah v. State of Assam & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court directed a probe into alleged illegal land allotments in the Temghar Dam project, highlighting serious irregularities in the rehabilitation process for project-affected persons.

The Court observed that alternate land had been allotted without proper verification of eligibility and supporting records.

A division bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered the State authorities to conduct a detailed investigation and take action against officials responsible for the lapses.

Emphasising accountability, the Court noted that such irregular allotments undermine the integrity of rehabilitation schemes meant for displaced persons.

[Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal of a former Bank of Baroda officer who was removed from service for remaining absent after refusing a transfer from Bhubaneswar to Godhra.

The Court emphasised that employees in all-India public services are expected to comply with transfer orders and observed that defiance disrupts banking administration.

Rejecting the employee’s plea that she stayed back to care for her aged parents, the Bench noted that she had suppressed facts regarding her siblings.

The Court also held that allegations of violation of natural justice must show actual prejudice and cannot be raised as empty formalities.

[Itishree Nath v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.]

The Jharkhand High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order passed nearly five years after issuance of the show cause notice, holding that the petitioner must first avail the statutory appellate remedy.

A Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory framework under GST laws.

The petitioner had argued that the prolonged delay rendered the adjudication invalid and also cited financial hardship in meeting pre-deposit requirements.

However, the Court held that disputed factual and legal issues are better examined by the appellate authority rather than through writ proceedings.

[Sujata Udit Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Taxes & Central Excise]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that regular religious congregations on private property are not immune to state regulation.

The Bench clarified that while personal, occasional prayer is protected, organized gatherings involving outsiders can alter a property's use and affect public order.

The Court emphasized that religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute and must balance with civic order and the rights of others.

Dismissing a plea to offer regular namaz on a site in Sambhal, the Court held that authorities need not wait for an actual disturbance to intervene if an activity has public consequences.

[Aseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

The Election Commission of India has assured the Supreme Court that State government nominees will be present as counting supervisors during the West Bengal assembly election vote count on May 4.

The assurance came during a challenge by the Trinamool Congress against the exclusion of state employees from these roles.

The Bench recorded the ECI’s commitment to follow its own circulars "in letter and spirit." 

While the Calcutta High Court had previously upheld the ECI's prerogative to use Central staff, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal after the ECI clarified that State officials would not be entirely excluded from the process.

[All India Trinamool Congress v. ECI]

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Justice Deepak Roshan directed the State to reconsider the promotion of nine additional collectors who were "victimised" by administrative delays and vacancy miscalculations.

Although the petitioners were later named in a CBI chargesheet regarding recruitment, the Court noted they were eligible for promotion in December 2023, months before the chargesheet was filed.

The Court held that denying promotion incentives causes professional stagnation and that the State’s inaction cannot deprive employees of their constitutional rights.

[Ravi Shankar v. State of Jharkhand]

The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Government’s decision to deny a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) to Fahim Ansari, who was acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case.

Ansari had sought the PCC to obtain permission to drive an autorickshaw for livelihood.

The Court held that restricting certain employment opportunities on grounds of public safety and national security amounts to a “reasonable restriction” on the right to livelihood.

It observed that the denial was based on intelligence inputs, criminal antecedents, and security concerns, while also clarifying that Ansari was not completely barred from seeking other forms of employment.

[Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari v. State of Maharashtra]

The Gujarat High Court upheld an order directing the Railways to pay ₹8 lakh compensation to the mother of a passenger who died after falling from a moving train.

The Railways had argued that the deceased may have committed suicide or acted negligently. Rejecting this contention, the Court observed that “no sane person would de-board a running train.”

It also noted that the Railways failed to complete the mandatory investigation within the prescribed time and could not prove negligence or suicide.

The Court further held that the absence of a recovered ticket alone does not disqualify a victim from being treated as a bona fide passenger.

[UOI v. Mandabai]

The Supreme Court directed the Allahabad High Court to grant an out-of-turn hearing to a 77-year-old cancer patient whose plea for pension and post-retiral benefits has remained pending for nearly nine years.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the High Court to consider the matter sympathetically.

The petitioner, Ram Shanker, argued that pension is not a “bounty” but a vested right linked to the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

He claimed that prolonged judicial delay in deciding his case amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.

[Ram Shanker v. State of UP]

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed Delta Corp’s plea seeking permission to operate electronic slot machines and casino-style amusement games at its five-star “The Deltin” hotel in Daman.

The Court held that no valid legal framework currently exists permitting such activities in the Union Territory.

A Division Bench observed that although amendments to the Goa gambling law were extended to Daman and Diu in 1998, the provisions were never formally enforced through the mandatory government notification.

As a result, operation of slot machines remains prohibited under the Public Gambling Act. The Court also rejected Delta Corp’s claims based on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

[Delta Corp Ltd & Anr. v. UT Administration of Daman and Diu]