The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that merely shouting "I love you" at a minor girl does not amount to sexual harassment under the POCSO Act unless it is accompanied by sexual intent.

The case involved a 15-year-old girl who alleged harassment by a boy. The trial court acquitted him, and the High Court upheld the decision.

Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal noted that a single expression of love, without evidence of sexual desire or abusive language, doesn’t attract Section 7 of the POCSO Act or other IPC provisions. The state’s appeal challenging the acquittal was dismissed. (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri)

President Donald Trump has signed the bipartisan GENIUS Act, creating the first federal framework to regulate stablecoins in the U.S.

The law sets rules and consumer safeguards, aiming to build trust and boost America’s role in the global crypto market. 

Once a crypto critic, Trump now calls the industry’s growth “a massive validation.”

He signed a new law prohibiting members of Congress from profiting from stablecoins, though his own family is exempt. The White House ceremony was attended by key crypto leaders and lawmakers, reflecting the sector’s strong support for his re-election.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that compelling a wife to disclose her phone and bank account passwords amounts to domestic violence and infringes her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The husband, who filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, also sought his wife’s call detail records from the family court. The High Court dismissed his plea, stating that marriage does not override an individual’s autonomy.

The Court observed that vague suspicions of adultery cannot justify surveillance or breaches of privacy.

Citing K.S. Puttaswamy, the court reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a PIL filed by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale seeking permission to cultivate industrial hemp/cannabis and establish a regulatory framework for its medicinal, industrial, and environmental use.

The Division Bench noted the rising narcotic abuse in the state and held that the petition was frivolous, lacked locus standi, and was not a genuine public interest litigation.

The Court emphasised that cannabis cultivation is regulated under the NDPS Act and falls within the legislature and executive’s domain. The court rejected the petitioner’s claims and dismissed the petition as a misuse of judicial process.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a long-running dispute over temple land, has upheld a 1989 civil court decree, affirming that the Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti, registered on 23 January 1974, is the rightful owner and manager of the temple property. 

Dismissing a challenge by a pujari claiming ancestral rights over the land, the Court held that the pujari merely serves as a manager or grantee without any proprietary entitlement.

The Court rejected the claim based on a 1985 patta (lease) and emphasised that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as he was not a party to the original proceedings. 

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi, a student simultaneously enrolled in an MSW and an LL.B program, who sought modification of clashing final exam schedules. 

The petitioner argued that overlapping exam dates violated his rights under Article 21 and cited UGC's revised dual-degree guidelines under the NEP 2020. 

However, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held that the student lacked the locus to demand timetable changes and that such relief could not be granted under writ jurisdiction. 

The Court refused to interfere in academic scheduling, thereby upholding the autonomy of the universities involved. (Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh)

On June 25, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court virtually inaugurated Five Digitisation Centres in District & Sessions Courts at Raigarh, Janjgir-Champa, Korba, and Bemetara.

The Court also launched e-summons for criminal cases and enabled video conferencing facilities at district hospitals across 23 civil districts.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha highlighted that digitisation will reduce physical records, enable online certified-copy requests, and ensure faster, secure transmission of court orders. These initiatives aim to cut delays, reduce paper use, and improve transparency. 

The initiatives align with the e-Courts Mission Mode Project and the Digital India vision, marking a key milestone in judicial modernisation in the state.

The Chhattisgarh High Court denied bail for Shashank Chopda, accused of masterminding the procurement of medical equipment and reagents under the "Hamar-Lab" scheme, causing a colossal loss worth Rs. 411 crores to the State.

The court found prima facie evidence of an organised conspiracy involving fictitious companies and fraudulent invoices over ₹150 crore.

The court emphasised that large economic offences pose serious threats to national financial health and public confidence.

The court held that granting bail at this stage could risk evidence tampering and send a negative message against anti-corruption efforts.

Given the seriousness of the offence and its potential societal impact, the bail application was rejected.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued a directive prohibiting litigants from carrying mobile phones or electronic devices inside courtrooms, even if they are switched off. 

Issuing the directive on June 18, the Court also warned against recording proceedings, stating that any violation would attract action under The Chhattisgarh High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2022.

Clear instructions have been issued to court staff and security personnel for the strict enforcement of the rule, aimed at maintaining decorum and preventing misuse during hearings.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a divorced wife living in an illicit relationship with a man other than her former husband is disqualified from claiming maintenance.

The court was hearing two revision petitions of the divorced couple challenging the 2024 family court order directing the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance.

The man argued that the woman was proven to be in an adulterous relationship with his younger brother.

The court held that a woman living in adultery cannot claim maintenance and set aside the lower court’s order. 

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that adoptive mothers are entitled to 180 days of child adoption leave under Rule 43-B(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

The Court held that denial of such leave violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

It emphasised equal maternity benefits for all mothers, biological, surrogate, or adoptive, affirming that motherhood, care, and dignity are constitutionally protected. 

The court also referred to Articles 38, 39, 42, 43, and global conventions like UDHR and CEDAW, stating that the law must recognise motherhood in all its forms.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a man convicted for rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, after nearly six years in prison. 

The man was convicted in 2018 for allegedly raping a girl he had eloped with and married. The FIR was filed by the girl’s father, claiming she was a minor.

The Court found no admissible evidence to establish the victim's minority, and the victim acknowledged that the relationship was consensual. Medical reports indicated no injuries and suggested the victim was habituated to sexual activity.

The Court set aside the conviction, ordering the man's immediate release. (Tarun Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh)

The Chhattisgarh High Court stayed the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2024 Exam until further orders. 

The petitioner, a full-time government employee, challenged a  2006 recruitment rule that requires candidates to be enrolled as advocates. 

She argued that under Bar Council Rule 49, full-time employees cannot enroll as advocates, making her ineligible despite her qualifications. She also contested the CGPSC’s December 2024 exam notification based on this requirement.

The Court noted similar stays by the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts and directed the CGPSC to postpone the exam scheduled for May 18, 2025, until the Supreme Court decides whether having prior practice as a lawyer should be a must for applying.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a woman cannot be forced to undergo a virginity test, as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and dignity.

The Court dismissed a husband's petition seeking the test for his wife, whom he accused of an extramarital affair with her brother-in-law. Married in 2023, the wife alleged her husband was impotent and refused marital relations, seeking ₹20,000 as maintenance.

The judge stated that the husband could use medical tests or other evidence to prove his claims but could not force his wife into a virginity test. The case is still at the evidence stage in the family court.