The Kerala High Court has issued detailed guidelines to strengthen vigilance oversight and ensure prompt reporting of malpractices at the Sabarimala Temple and other temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB).

Emphasising transparency and corruption-free administration, the Court directed the vigilance wing to submit quarterly status reports within fixed timelines, with separate reporting for Sabarimala and other temples.

The Board has been mandated to consider vigilance reports within one month and initiate disciplinary action wherever required. Special focus has also been ordered during the Mandala–Makaravilakku pilgrimage season.

The Court clarified that these directions do not curtail the Sabarimala Special Commissioner’s authority to report serious issues at any time.

The Supreme Court permitted counselling for 49 postgraduate medical seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (HIMSR) for the 2025–26 academic year, despite a pending affiliation dispute with Jamia Hamdard University.

Granting interim relief, the Court directed the National Medical Commission to include these seats in the counselling matrix, emphasising that students should not suffer due to institutional conflicts.

The dispute stems from an ongoing arbitration related to control and affiliation, wherein an arbitral tribunal had earlier ordered restoration of seats.

While examining the legality of the High Court’s interference with the arbitral order, the Supreme Court acted solely to safeguard students’ interests.

The Kerala High Court rejected petitions seeking to bar physiotherapists and occupational therapists from using the prefix “Dr.”

The case arose from pleas filed by the Indian Medical Association and others questioning provisions under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021. The Court held that medical doctors do not possess an exclusive statutory right to the title “Doctor” and noted that the National Medical Commission Act does not expressly confer such entitlement.

It observed that physiotherapists are recognised as distinct healthcare professionals and are permitted under the statutory curriculum to use the prefix “Dr” with suitable suffixes.

The Court refused to interfere with legislative policy and vacated its earlier interim order.

The Supreme Court criticised several states for failing to take effective action to deal with the problem of stray dogs.

The case arose from a batch of matters relating to the enforcement of the Animal Birth Control Rules and the Court’s earlier directions on the removal of stray animals from highways and institutional premises.

The Court noted serious deficiencies in sterilisation measures, availability of shelters and dog pounds, and absence of credible data on dog bite incidents. It observed that many affidavits submitted by states were vague and misleading, calling them “total eye wash.”

The Court reiterated its interim directions and warned that chief secretaries could be summoned again if there is no visible improvement.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that High Court officers are entitled to compensatory leave for work performed on holidays, holding that denial of such leave is illegal and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that High Courts routinely function even on holidays for urgent judicial work, and officers discharging official duties during such periods cannot be deprived of compensatory benefits.

It emphasized that service conditions of High Court staff fall within the constitutional framework of Article 229 and must be respected by the administration.

Arbitrary denial of compensatory leave undermines fairness, service rights, and constitutional protections afforded to court employees.

The Supreme Court held that complaints alleging offences by public servants in the discharge of official duties must be supported by an affidavit.

The observation was made while hearing a plea challenging a Kerala High Court order on registration of an FIR against police officers.

Referring to existing directions for complaints against judicial officers, the Court said there is no rational basis to apply a different standard to public servants, as the requirement helps filter out false, frivolous or vexatious complaints.

The Court also clarified that a judicial magistrate may reject applications under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, if allegations are wholly untenable or inherently improbable, provided valid reasons are recorded.

The Supreme Court pulled up the Bar Council of India (BCI) for failing to provide adequate honorarium and travel allowances to retired High Court judges appointed to monitor State Bar Council elections.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant questioned how former Chief Justices and judges were expected to bear travel and accommodation costs themselves.

The Court also sought an explanation from BCI for constituting a separate committee for Rajasthan Bar Council elections without informing it.

Directing BCI to respond by the next day, the Bench cautioned against compelling judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court has dismissed JioStar’s plea seeking to stall a Competition Commission of India investigation into alleged abuse of dominant position in the Kerala cable television market.

The Court noted that the probe is still at a preliminary stage and declined to interfere at this juncture.

The case originates from a complaint by Asianet Digital Network alleging discriminatory pricing and denial of market access by JioStar through excessive discounts and sham marketing agreements.

The Court reaffirmed that allegations of abuse of dominance fall squarely within the CCI’s jurisdiction despite sectoral regulation by TRAI.

The Supreme Court directed its Registry to explain why two petitions arising from the same FIR and the same impugned Allahabad High Court order were listed before different Benches.

The petitioner informed the Court that a co-accused had filed a connected petition against the same order, which was already listed before another Bench, where notice had been issued and the operation of the impugned order stayed.

The Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India and said responsibility of the guilty officer must be fixed before transferring the case to the appropriate Bench.

[Arsheel @ Amaan v. State of U.P & Anr]

The Karnataka High Court lifted the ban on bike taxi services and directed the State government to allow motorcycles to be registered as transport vehicles and to issue carriage permits for their operation.

The decision was passed while hearing appeals filed by ANI Technologies, Uber India and Roppen Transportation Services against an earlier order that had supported the ban.

The State government had imposed the ban on June 16, 2025, directing app-based aggregators to stop bike taxi services. 

Ola and Uber welcomed the decision, saying bike taxis are an affordable mode of transport that improve last-mile connectivity and provide livelihood opportunities for drivers.

A Uttar Pradesh judicial officer, Vibhanshu Sudheer, who recently ordered registration of an FIR against police personnel accused of shooting a youth during the 2024 Sambhal violence, has been transferred three times since May 2025.

His transfer from Sambhal to Sultanpur drew criticism from opposition parties and protests from lawyers, who alleged political motivation. 

Earlier, he had held that a criminal investigation was necessary after a complaint alleged custodial firing outside the Sambhal Jama Masjid.

The Uttar Pradesh Police has stated it will challenge the order. The frequent transfers have sparked debate on judicial independence and administrative discretion.

The Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) has objected to a proposal to hold regular court sittings on two Saturdays every month as a measure to reduce pendency.

The Association said the move would have wide-ranging implications for the Bar, access to justice, and the work-life balance of all stakeholders.

It pointed out that Saturday sittings would particularly burden advocates who travel from distant districts to attend the High Court. The KHCAA stressed that such a major policy change cannot be implemented without detailed consultation and a clear mandate from its General Body.

Seeking time, the Association said it would place its considered views before the High Court’s administrative committee.

The Supreme Court requested the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the unconditional apology of an advocate facing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings over a heated courtroom exchange.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant observed that while judicial authority must be respected, professional friction can arise during court proceedings.

The Court noted that the advocate had expressed remorse and was willing to tender an unconditional apology.

Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the advocate to file an affidavit of apology before the High Court and requested the contempt bench to pass appropriate orders after due consideration.

[Mahesh Tiwari v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand]

The Supreme Court has declined to direct a reduction in the NEET UG qualifying cut-off for BAMS admissions for the 2025–26 academic year.

The Court noted that the academic session was already nearing completion and held that no interim relief could be granted at this stage. It recorded the National Commission of Indian System of Medicine’s opposition to any further reduction, observing that lowering the cut-off would compromise educational standards.

The Court also noted that only a small number of seats remained vacant across the country and that cut-offs had already been extended multiple times.

Emphasising that academic standards cannot be diluted merely to fill vacant seats, the Court dismissed the plea.

[NRI Institute of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences v. UOI]