The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that state-funded projects on government-owned land do not require prior consultation with Halqa Panchayats.

The case involved issuing tenders for veterinary and sheep extension centers on land classified as “Sarkar” (state-owned). The bench noted that, while local participation is important, the Panchayati Raj Act does not explicitly mandate consultation in such cases.

Referring to Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan and Prithpal Singh v. State of J&K, the Court clarified that decentralisation principles must align with statutory and technical requirements.

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, stating that a lack of consultation may be undesirable but does not render the tender process illegal.

The Kerala High Court held that Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) qualifies as a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act and must disclose information accordingly.

The Court found that CIAL, though incorporated under the Companies Act, was substantially financed and controlled by government bodies. The Court noted that 6 of its 11 directors are ex officio government nominees, including the Chief Minister as Chairman.

Upholding earlier decisions of the State Information Commission and a single judge, the Court directed CIAL to comply with RTI norms within 15 days and imposed a ₹1 lakh cost for filing unauthorised appeals without board approval.

[M/S Cochin International Airport Limited v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and connected cases]

Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has vacated the official CJI residence at 5, Krishna Menon Marg, nearly nine months after his retirement on November 8, 2024.

The move came after the Supreme Court administration requested the housing ministry to reclaim the bungalow for the court’s housing pool.

A controversy had arisen over his continued stay beyond the permissible period. The former CJI had earlier expressed regret, citing the medical condition of his daughters, who require wheelchair-accessible facilities, and the delay in completion of his new house as reasons for the extended stay.

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an illegal blacklisting order issued by the Unnao District Magistrate and imposed ₹1 lakh cost on the DM and ₹25,000 on the District Basic Education Officer for violating principles of natural justice.

The Court found that the order lacked a show-cause notice, did not specify a fixed duration, and was issued despite binding Supreme Court law.

The court held the DM failed to apply his mind and circulated the order statewide without legal justification, while the Education Officer offered a timely apology. The blacklisting order was set aside on grounds of procedural unfairness and proportionality under Articles 14 and 21.

[M/S Cropscare Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v State Of U.P]

The Delhi High Court quashed the Centre’s decision refusing to renew an NGO’s FCRA registration, observing that the refusal was communicated through a one-line email, indicating non-application of mind.

Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal held that such a cryptic rejection violates principles of natural justice, especially since the NGO had complied with FCRA requirements.

The Court emphasised the need for reasoned orders in administrative decisions, particularly when they affect the rights and functioning of civil society organisations.

The Bench quashed the impugned communication and directed the Union of India to consider the request of the NGO for renewal of the FCRA certificate afresh.

[Indian Social Action Forum v. UOI]

A young advocate collapsed in the Bombay High Court on Friday after being sternly reprimanded by Justice A.S. Gadkari, reports confirm.

Eyewitnesses said the visibly nervous lawyer struggled to respond during questioning before fainting, prompting immediate medical aid. 

The incident has reignited debate within the legal fraternity on where firmness ends and bullying begins, especially since junior lawyers often face disproportionate pressure under aggressive judicial conduct. 

While judges like Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Gautam Patel are known for supportive courtroom atmospheres, others face criticism for harshness, leaving many to ask: Should fear be the cost of learning? 

The Calcutta High Court has held that traffic police have no power to impound, suspend, or revoke citizens' driving licences.

They may seize a license only under specific conditions stated in Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but must forward it to a court for cognisance. If the court finds the driver guilty, only the licensing authority can take further action.

The Court also ruled that police can’t demand cash fines or force drivers to compound offences if they wish to defend themselves against the allegations.

The Court slammed officers for misconduct, urged better training, and directed that official receipts be issued during any licence seizure. 

[Subhrangsu Panda v. The State of West Bengal & Ors]

On July 28, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Times of India report highlighting the growing incidents of stray dog attacks on children and the elderly in Delhi.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed the court registry to register the issue as a writ petition, noting the alarming frequency of dog bites and rabies-related deaths.

Calling the situation disturbing, the court emphasized the urgent need for intervention. The matter has been placed before the Chief Justice of India for further orders, along with a copy of the news report.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah moved a statutory resolution in Rajya Sabha to extend President’s Rule in Manipur until February 13, 2026.

The imposition of President’s Rule on February 13, 2025, came in the wake of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation, prompted by persistent ethnic unrest in the state. The Centre invoked Article 356 of the Constitution to enforce the measure.

Despite efforts by the BJP and allied MLAs to form a government, instability persisted. The Gazette notification transfers legislative powers to Parliament and suspends key constitutional provisions.

With over 60,000 displaced and hundreds dead in Meitei–Kuki-Zomi clashes, the Centre retains direct control through the Governor until elections restore governance.

The Supreme Court permitted the Kerala government to withdraw its petitions alleging the Governor’s delay in granting assent to State Bills and challenging the President’s refusal to clear some of them.

The Court allowed the withdrawal, despite objections from the Central government.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that the issue raised important constitutional questions. 

However, Kerala’s counsel, KK Venugopal, argued the matter had become infructuous after the Governor referred the Bills to the President, and a related Supreme Court judgment in April settled the issue.

[State of Kerala and anr. v. The Honble Governor for the State of Kerala and ors.]

The Supreme Court has asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to suggest an independent and transparent system for inspecting law colleges. This came during a plea by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School, which challenged BCI’s inspection notice.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court had upheld BCI’s Legal Education Rules, 2008, stating they are valid and do not violate fundamental rights.

The Court ruled that under the Advocates Act, BCI has the duty to maintain legal education standards, and this law prevails over conflicting state university laws. The matter will be heard again in four weeks.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the appointment of IPS officer Anurag Gupta as Jharkhand’s DGP, despite him being set to retire on April 30, 2025.

He was retained under new state rules, which the Centre opposes, citing central guidelines on age limits for DGP appointments.

A social activist, represented by Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, challenged the extension before the Supreme Court.

The case will be heard by a three-judge Bench. Amidst that, a related petition by BJP leader Babulal Marandi is already pending before the Jharkhand High Court.