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.]

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on Maharashtra’s review plea challenging the direction to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to probe the 2023 Akola riots.

Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the plea, holding that the order ensured transparency and fairness, remarking that “secularism must be practised in reality, not remain on paper.”

However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that specifying SIT composition by religion required further consideration and issued notice for an open-court hearing.

The matter will now be placed before a larger Bench for final determination.

[State of Maharashtra & Ors. v Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif]

The Kerala High Court bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji laid down a 15-point framework to enhance the juvenile justice system and safeguard children’s rights.

The Court directed the State to fill vacancies in child protection bodies within four weeks, reconstitute Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards within eight weeks, and ensure annual reports are published on time.

The High Court also ordered the framing of SOPs for Child Care Institution inspections, uploading data of missing children on the Mission Vatsalya portal, forming Special Juvenile Police Units, and conducting annual social audits.

[Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that granting a reward to an informer of GST evasion is a discretionary act and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The petitioner had sought a reward under the Central Excise and Service Tax Reward Scheme, 2015, for providing information on tax evasion. The Court observed that the scheme expressly treats such rewards as ex gratia, dependent on the authority’s satisfaction with the accuracy and usefulness of the information.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, holding that an informer has no enforceable right to demand the reward.

[S. C. Gupta v Union of India & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Union government to frame distinct food safety regulations for small, medium, and large restaurants to ensure consistent hygiene and health standards across all levels of food businesses.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the current framework under the 2011 Regulations only differentiates establishments based on annual turnover, which is inadequate. The court also asked the state to issue separate health and safety standards for street vendors and food trucks.

Upholding the constitutionality of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the court said the regulations serve a vital public purpose and must be strictly followed.

[Karnataka Pradesh Hotel & Restaurants Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 373]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the state government’s failure to release terminal benefits to retired employees amounted to a violation of their fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the erosion of traditional values of respect toward senior citizens was a distressing trend in modern society.

The Court emphasised that timely disbursal of pensions and retirement dues is vital for the survival of senior citizens and directed the state to clear all pending benefits with interest, treating delayed payment as a form of deprivation.

[Chittiboyina Bharata Rao v The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd]

The Delhi High Court has condemned the growing practice of lawyers attending virtual hearings while travelling in moving vehicles. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that such conduct disrupts proceedings, wastes judicial time, and undermines the right to access justice.

The Court observed that despite repeated reminders, some advocates continue this practice, which affects courtroom decorum. The remarks came after a lawyer’s submissions were interrupted due to connectivity issues during travel. She later appeared in person and apologised. The Bench accepted her apology but reminded lawyers to uphold the dignity of the court and the legal profession.

The Supreme Court upheld the Centre’s decision to implement a Biometric Attendance System in the Office of the Principal Accountant General, Odisha, ruling that its introduction cannot be considered illegal merely because employees were not informed or consulted beforehand.

The Court noted that administrative reforms aimed at ensuring discipline and efficiency do not require prior consent from staff members.

The system had been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the grounds that it violated procedural norms set out in Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices.

[Union of India v Employees of Principal Accountant General Office, Odisha]

The Delhi High Court urged Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena to expedite approval of rules governing the appointment of Local Commissioners and Receivers in district courts.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed while disposing of a writ petition filed by Advocate Rajiv Khosla.

The Court was informed that while similar rules for High Court matters were finalised and notified on September 2, 2025, the district court rules remain pending approval from the Lieutenant Governor.

The Bench expressed hope that the issue would be resolved promptly and directed that the notified rules be circulated among all Bar Associations in Delhi.

[Rajiv Khosla v High Court of Delhi & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court held that a conviction under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, cannot disqualify a person from government service. The Bench cited Section 19(1) of the Act, which expressly excludes any disqualification arising from a juvenile conviction.

The ruling came in a plea by a teacher of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gauriganj, whose service was terminated for concealing his juvenile record.

The Court noted that the proviso under Section 24 of the 2015 Act did not apply since the offence predated it and ordered the teacher’s reinstatement with full benefits.

[Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak v Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Madras High Court Division Bench order modifying an interim status quo on the Madras Race Club’s 99-year lease termination dispute. The Court clarified that the Tamil Nadu Government may only undertake works required for the proposed eco-park on the 160-acre Guindy property, not any permanent construction.

The Bench directed the High Court to expedite related applications. The State had argued that the development of ponds was essential for flood control and rainwater conservation.

The Madras Race Club contended that the Division Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction by expanding the scope of permitted works.

[Madras Race Club v State of Tamil Nadu]

The Allahabad High Court has cautioned the Supreme Court against “micromanaging” the functioning of state judiciaries, warning that such interference threatens judicial independence.

The Court addressed concerns over administrative directions on postings and transfers, asserting that High Courts held exclusive constitutional authority under Articles 227 and 235 to manage their judicial officers and staff.

The Court urged the Supreme Court to maintain a hands-off approach, observing that excessive oversight risked disrupting internal administration and undermining the autonomy of subordinate courts.

The Court emphasised that judicial self-governance formed the cornerstone of institutional independence and was vital to preserving the federal character of India’s judicial system.

[Allahabad High Court v Union of India]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the Railways’ failure to prevent overcrowding by ticketless passengers amounts to contributory negligence, making it liable to compensate the families of genuine passengers who die in such accidents.

The Court underscored the Railways’ statutory duty to ensure passenger safety and to regulate entry so that only bona fide ticket holders board trains. The Court observed that overcrowding caused by lax supervision leads to unsafe conditions, directly contributing to accidents.

The Court passed the ruling while setting aside the Railways Claims Tribunal’s order, which had denied compensation to the family of a man who fell from an overcrowded moving train.

[Vijay Singh Gour v. Union of India]