The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that protection petitions by runaway couples will only be considered if they provide complete personal details, including age, full address, father’s name, and previous residence.

The decision follows Justice Sanjay Vashisth’s ruling in a case where a 19-year-old woman and a 21-year-old man married without parental consent and later faced threats. Fazilka’s SSP was directed to verify their plea and ensure their safety.

The court noted a trend of couples listing a common address, emphasizing stricter verification before processing such petitions.

The Supreme Court directed that all execution petitions must be disposed of within six months, with any delays requiring written justification.

Bhoj Raj Garg filed an execution petition in 2019, but the Execution Court delayed the case for years. After his request for an early hearing was denied, he approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which declined to intervene.

He then approached the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed its precedent in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021).

The Kerala High Court ruled that a private person cannot appear on behalf of another solely based on a power of attorney without prior permission of the court under Section 32 of the Advocates Act.

The petitioner sought representation through a power of attorney holder. The court relied on Supreme Court rulings in T.C. Mathai & Another v. District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., which state that only enrolled advocates have the right to represent others without permission. 

As a result, the court rejected his request and dismissed the plea, reaffirming that power of attorney holders cannot automatically act as legal representatives in court.

Madras High Court directed that only devotional songs will be played in Hindu temples and forbade the playing of film songs.

A Bench issued the directive in a case lodged by a devotee from Puducherry, Venkatesh Sowrirajan. 

He contested that it is not suitable to sing such songs inside the temples.

The court order asserted that during temple festivals, an orchestra for the festival should only consist of devotional songs.

The court stressed that temple authorities should ensure compliance with this order to safeguard the religious and cultural heritage.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal by two primary school teachers challenging a circular requiring geo-tagged photos for attendance.

Hearing the matter, the Court ruled that male teachers cannot claim privacy violations and imposed a ₹2,500 fine on each appellant.

The Court, however, acknowledged privacy concerns for female staff and directed the State to allow them to submit photos of the campus or principal’s office.

It also urged the government to develop an application to address privacy concerns while ensuring teacher accountability.

The Madras High Court granted emergency leave to a convicted prisoner for 15 days, ruling that the prisoner has the right to marry.

The court emphasized that the right to marry is a human right citing Article 23(2) of the ICCPR and Article 16(1) of the UDHR.

The court relied on Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 which allows emergency leave for a prisoner’s wedding.

The court directed the Superintendent of Trichy Central Prison to provide an escort in civil dress, with the cost to be deducted from the convict’s earnings.

The Delhi High Court has put on hold the contempt proceedings against NUJS and its Vice-Chancellor over awarding an MA in Business Law to a student in a course conducted in association with iPleaders.

The court issued a notice to the student, Kapil Mishra, who enrolled in 2017. NUJS suspended the course in 2018 due to disputes with iPleaders.

Mishra in 2019 later sought his certificate, and the High Court ruled in his favor, instructing the university to take appropriate action.

NUJS then asked for necessary documents but found them incomplete. Their review petition was dismissed in 2024, leading to an appeal before the Division Bench.

Meanwhile, Mishra filed contempt proceedings against NUJS. 

The Supreme Court ruled that laundry businesses, including washing, cleaning, and dry cleaning, are considered a "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act, 1948.

The case involved White Cloud, a laundry business in Goa, which was found violating several factory laws, including operating without a license.

The Bombay High Court had earlier ruled that dry cleaning was not a manufacturing process. However, the State of Goa challenged this decision.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling, stating that transformation or the creation of a new product is not necessary for an activity to be considered a manufacturing process under the law, and dry cleaning constitutes a "manufacturing process" under section 2(k) of the Act. 

The Telangana High Court has lifted its previous order barring children under the age of 16 from visiting theatres after 11 PM.

The rule was made during a case about benefit shows and high ticket prices for Game Changer after a stampede at a Pushpa 2 event.

This change took place after the multiplex operators appealed against the order, arguing the decision was made without considering all factors and would affect their business.

The court asked the state to issue guidelines and lifted the restriction from its January 24 order. The next hearing on this issue is scheduled for March 17.

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over tribunals hiring staff on a contractual basis from private agencies, highlighting security risks and record management issues.

The court suggested that the staff of the tribunals must be appointed on a deputation basis and not on a contractual basis

The Court also addressed the poor service conditions in tribunals, noting that short four-year tenures deter qualified candidates.

It urged the Union government to implement effective reforms and announced plans to review the matter every fortnight.

The Madras HC has ruled that an insurance company must pay compensation to the family of a deceased accident victim, even if the driver was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

Hearing the matter, the court relied on a Kerala HC's ruling in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid v. Girivasan E.K, which held that an insurer cannot deny compensation to third-party victims based on policy violations by the driver.

Instead, the insurance company must pay the compensation first and recover it from the vehicle owner.

The Court enhanced the compensation from ₹27.65 lakh to ₹30.25 lakh with 7.5% interest and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within six weeks.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed The Chennai Law Firm’s plea to recover ₹6.57 lakh from Reyvish Associates Pvt Ltd, citing Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which prevents unregistered firms from enforcing contractual claims through legal proceedings.

The firm was contracted for legal work under the SARFAESI Act and sought unpaid fees, but the appellate court ruled against it, affirming its unregistered status, and also upheld the Madras High Court position.

The Court clarified that unregistered law firms cannot claim unpaid fees in court, reinforcing the importance of legal registration for partnerships.

The Karnataka State Government has officially amended the rule to allow all courts to serve notices and summons by email.

Earlier, the Karnataka High Court has asked the state to update it by February 25 on allowing court notices by email. 

Under these amendments, the High Court, district courts, and tribunals are now authorized to issue legal notices and summons electronically.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court interim order which permitted two law graduates from an unrecognized college to appear for the civil judge examination. 

Recently, the Gujarat High Court directed the State Bar Council to grant provisional practice certificates to the applicants so that they could participate in the examination.

The Gujarat Court relied on Saiyed Mahammadjuber Yunusbhai & Others v. Bar Council of Gujarat & Others, wherein the Court allowed similarly placed law graduates to appear in the All India Bar Exam, 2024, and the Bar Council of Gujarat issued the provisional certificates of practice.

The hearing has been scheduled for March 4.

The Kerala High Court held that booking and selling train tickets for commercial gain using the IRCTC website violates Section 143 of the Railways Act. Only railway servants or authorized agents can supply railway tickets.

A woman approached the court to quash charges against her for allegedly using multiple IRCTC profiles to book and resell tickets. Police seized e-tickets and devices from her travel agency.

She argued that booking for others is allowed, but the court noted IRCTC’s terms prohibit commercial resale.

Citing IRCTC’s terms, the court found a prima facie case and directed her to face trial.