The Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association has announced a nationwide protest against the Supreme Court’s recent Constitution Bench ruling that allows judicial officers with a combined seven years of practice and service to compete for district judge posts under the Bar quota.

The Association said the judgment dilutes opportunities for practising advocates and weakens the balance between judicial service promotions and direct Bar recruitment.

Senior lawyers argued that the ruling undermines the independence of the Bar and favours those already within the judicial hierarchy.

Several Bar bodies, including the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, are preparing legal challenges.

A Delhi court extended the investigative custody of Amir Rashid Ali to the National Investigation Agency for ten days in the Red Fort terror attack case.

The accused was produced before the Principal District and Sessions Judge after his arrest. The NIA asserted that Ali conspired with Umar Un Nabi, who allegedly drove the explosives-laden vehicle used in the incident.

The agency submitted that Ali purchased the Hyundai i20 involved in the attack and arranged a safe house for Nabi, forming part of an alleged wider terror plot. The Court found further custodial interrogation necessary for the ongoing investigation.

The Allahabad High Court held that trial courts in Uttar Pradesh must write judgments either wholly in Hindi or wholly in English, and cannot combine both languages within the same decision.

The Bench observed that bilingual judgments undermine the statutory objective of employing Hindi in a predominantly Hindi-speaking state and impede litigants’ ability to comprehend judicial reasoning.

The Court clarified that quotations from Supreme Court or High Court precedents may be reproduced in the original language, but corresponding Hindi translations must be provided to maintain clarity.

The ruling was directed to be circulated to all judicial officers for uniform compliance across subordinate courts.

The Karnataka High Court issued notice on a petition challenging the appointment of a District Judge selected through direct recruitment for practising advocates.

The petition alleged that the appointee did not satisfy the mandatory practice requirement because she served as a full-time Assistant Professor of Law between 2019 and 2022, thereby attracting Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits advocates from practising while in salaried employment.

The plea contended that this period could not be counted as legal practice for eligibility. 

The Bench directed the Registrar General to file a response and listed the matter for further hearing on January 29, 2026.

The Supreme Court proposed that the government consider a gradual ban on luxury petrol and diesel cars to accelerate India’s transition to electric vehicles (EVs). Hearing a plea for the implementation of EV promotion policies, the Court underscored the urgency of tackling urban air pollution caused by high-emission vehicles.

The Court recommended that luxury and high-end internal combustion engine (ICE) cars be targeted first in the shift toward cleaner alternatives. The Bench noted that as EV adoption increases, supporting infrastructure like charging stations will expand accordingly.

The Court also observed that existing government policies may need to be reviewed to ensure effective EV promotion.

The Mumbai Anti-Corruption Bureau registered an FIR against an Additional Judge of the Mazagaon Civil & Sessions Court and a court clerk for allegedly demanding and accepting a ₹15 lakh bribe to secure a favourable order in a commercial suit.

The ACB stated that the clerk received the bribe on behalf of both accused and was apprehended in a trap operation. The allegations concerned the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for performing a public duty.

Both individuals were booked under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which criminalise the solicitation or receipt of undue advantage by public servants.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Central government, not the State, is the “appropriate authority” for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court ruled that BMRCL qualifies as a “railway company” since the Centre exercises substantial control over its functioning. It found that the State government has no jurisdiction to regulate the service conditions or disciplinary matters of BMRCL employees.

Consequently, the Court quashed two State notifications declaring metro services as public utility and essential services.

The Kerala High Court criticised Revenue Divisional Officers for issuing “copy-paste” and non-speaking orders while deciding applications seeking conversion of land classified as paddy land under the 2008 Rules.

The Court observed that nearly 90% of such orders were identical in wording, revealing a mechanical exercise with no independent reasoning.

The Court held that public officers are duty-bound to apply their minds, provide reasons, and avoid blindly approving pre-drafted formats.

Finding the impugned order to be a stereotyped template, the Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the officer concerned and cautioned that future cryptic and unreasoned orders would attract similar penalties.

[Vinumon v District Collector & Ors.]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court came down heavily on the Haryana Forest Department after discovering that affidavits filed by senior officials contained “absolutely false and misleading” statements.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said such actions erode public trust in both governance and the judicial process. The issue arose from petitions seeking regularisation of services, where the State had falsely claimed full compliance with court directives.

Finding clear discrepancies, the Court warned that honesty in affidavits is essential and cautioned that contempt proceedings may follow if such conduct is repeated.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the Railways is liable to compensate victims even when deaths occur during unauthorised track crossing. The case involved the death of a 3-year-old child and two women who were run over by a train while attempting to rescue him.

The Court held that such deaths qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the victims’ families to compensation.

The Court observed that negligence of the Railways in failing to install fencing, barricades, security, or public warnings contributed to the tragedy, and such lapses cannot absolve it of statutory liability.

[Union of India v Sarita Ahirwar & Ors.]

The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over increasing violent incidents within court premises and signalled its intent to frame comprehensive guidelines on court security nationwide.

The bench, while hearing a plea filed by the Kerala Police Officers Association, held that strict action must be taken against those involved in such acts to preserve judicial sanctity.

The Court also referred to existing High Court directions outlining police conduct during arrests and the code of behaviour within court complexes.

The court stressed that courts must remain secure spaces for justice delivery, free from intimidation or disruption.

[Kerala Police Officers Association v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court directed that police verification for passport applications must be completed within four weeks, emphasising that undue delay violates the fundamental right to travel.

A Bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi noted that the Court is “flooded” with pleas arising from stalled verifications and held that timely processing is essential for administrative fairness.

The Court further directed that applicants facing pending criminal proceedings must obtain necessary no-objection certificates before applying, and passport authorities must inform applicants within one month if their applications cannot be processed. The directions aim to streamline verification and safeguard citizens’ mobility rights.

[Rahimuddin v Union of India & Anr]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh to submit a report explaining the prolonged delay in handing over government housing to judges.

The Bench observed that despite residences being allotted, possession had not been transferred due to administrative lapses.

The Court sought clarification on whether the delay was linked to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ cap of ₹1 crore on tenders for renovation and refurbishment work.

The UT’s senior standing counsel assured that factual details would be verified and presented. The Court directed that reasons for the delay be identified and reported to ensure the timely allocation of official residences.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) is empowered to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) under Section 9 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The Court observed that once such a delegation is made, disciplinary proceedings initiated by the DLSA’s Chairman are valid and legally sustainable.

The Court further held that the delegation of powers did not violate any statutory provision and that actions taken pursuant to the delegated authority could not be set aside merely on procedural grounds.

The disciplinary action was thus upheld as lawful.

[Om Prakash v Hon’ble High Court of H.P. & Ors.]