The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to prevent the illegal transportation of elephants and ensure the return of the three elephants that were moved to Bihar in violation of wildlife laws.

The court, while hearing a PIL filed by Cape Foundation, noted that elephants were kept in cruel conditions at an ashram in Bihar, suffering injuries from spiked shackles, heavy chains and sharp spears, ergo violating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The court also instructed the state to strengthen border controls to stop future illegal elephant transport. The PIL was accordingly allowed.

The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to submit a detailed report by July 10, 2025, on a cataract surgery camp held at the State General Hospital, where a patient allegedly lost vision due to medical negligence.

The petitioner claims negligence on the part of the hospital and requests a fair inquiry and compensation.

The court has asked the Additional Government Pleader to gather information about the surgical drive, including any patient complaints, and submit a report.

The petition alleges probable liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for service deficiencies and a fundamental duty of medical care.

The Calcutta High Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a 2.5-year-old child to life imprisonment without remission.

The accused, Suresh Paswan, raped and murder of a 2.5 year old girl child who was sleeping under a flyover around Kolkata's Khidderporearea with her family.

The Court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, it did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold required for capital punishment. The Division Bench observed that sentencing must adhere to constitutional safeguards like proportionality and the possibility of reform.

The court noted that the trial court had not properly considered mitigating factors. The Court upheld the conviction but revised the punishment accordingly.

The Calcutta High Court has stayed the implementation of West Bengal’s revised OBC-A and OBC-B lists, which added 76 new communities, reportedly including 80 Muslim groups, bringing the total to 140.

The Court directed that no action be taken based on the list until further orders. This follows an earlier OBC list with 113 groups being struck down.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee defended the new list, asserting it is based on social backwardness, not religion. However, critics, including the BJP, allege it promotes appeasement politics. 

The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, with the next hearing scheduled for July 31.

The Calcutta High Court held that the Aadhaar Act, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively, as it lacks provisions for retroactive operation.

Citing Article 20(1) of the Constitution, the Court quashed proceedings against a petitioner accused of Aadhaar-related offences from 2014. 

The petitioner faced charges under Sections 419, 420, 468 IPC, Sections 34, 35, 42 of the Aadhaar Act, and Sections 66C, 66D of the IT Act.

The Court found no intent to deceive and noted UIDAI’s technical mismatch findings and the petitioner’s efforts to rectify issues, terming the case an abuse of legal process. (Dulal Kumbhakar v  State of West Bengal & Anr.)

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an advocate’s previous professional engagement with a law firm does not automatically disqualify them from acting as an arbitrator, unless there is a direct personal or professional relationship with the parties to the dispute.

Justice Shampa Sarkar clarified that Section 12(5) and Schedule VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, aim to prevent conflicts of interest, not to bar advocates for mere past associations.

The bench dismissed an application challenging the arbitrator’s appointment, noting that a broad interpretation would bar most advocates from arbitrator roles, contrary to legislative intent.

The Calcutta High Court has directed disciplinary action against two judicial officers for failing to provide legal aid to an accused under the NDPS Act.

The Court found that during his arrest and court appearances, the accused was not offered a legal aid lawyer, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.

The court also noted that the arrest memo lacked any mention of the grounds for arrest, which is a basic right of the arrested person. 

The Registrar General has been directed to initiate appropriate action, reaffirming that procedural fairness is not optional but a legal duty.