The Karnataka High Court has refused a plea by the Bengaluru Police to identify a deceased woman by comparing her fingerprints with the Aadhaar database.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj explained that Aadhaar authentication is built to work only with live fingerprints, and post-mortem impressions cannot be processed under the UIDAI’s biometric system.

The Court said it would be neither legally permissible nor technologically feasible to direct UIDAI to attempt such verification.

Police were told to use other lawful methods to establish the woman’s identity, noting that Aadhaar-based checks apply only to living individuals.

[State of Karnataka v Ministry of Electronics & Information & Anr.]

The Election Commission has clarified to the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is used solely to verify identity, not citizenship, when adding names to electoral rolls under Section 23(4) of the RP Act, 1950.

The ECI said Form 6 reflects the legal position and that Aadhaar cannot prove citizenship, residence, or date of birth, consistent with the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and UIDAI’s 2023 clarification.

The Commission noted that, following a Supreme Court order on September 8, 2025, it issued instructions on September 9 that Aadhaar may be used only as “proof of identity and not as proof of citizenship” for voter-list revisions.

The Union Government informed the Kerala High Court that a trans man cannot access ART services under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act, 2021. 

It is submitted that the law permits ART only for married heterosexual couples and single women, and does not include transgender persons. The response came to a petition by a trans man seeking permission to cryopreserve his eggs before undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

The Centre said these exclusions were deliberate, based on parliamentary debate and child-welfare considerations.

It added that adoption and surrogacy laws follow similar limits and argued that expanding ART access is a legislative, not judicial, decision.

[Hari Devageeth v Union of India]

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to file a status report within six weeks on the measures taken for the effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). 

The direction came while hearing a PIL highlighting serious lapses, including the non-functional statutory disability fund and the State’s failure to implement the mandatory 5% reservation in public employment for persons with disabilities.

The Bench noted that compliance with the RPwD Act cannot be delayed and requires coordinated administrative action. The matter will be heard next on February 4, 2026, after the court reviews the State’s compliance report.

[Y Karthik & Ors V State of Karnataka & Ors]

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking the removal of CCTV cameras installed by neighbours, rejecting claims that they intruded into the petitioners’ bedroom and dining area. 

Justice N. Nagaresh held that while the right to privacy (under Article 21) is fundamental, it must be balanced against another’s right to security. The cameras, he noted, were installed to protect an 80-year-old woman allegedly threatened by the petitioners.

Since no “established case of snooping” was shown, the court declined to order removal.

[Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty V State of Kerala & Ors]

The Kerala High Court has held that a transgender student cannot be enrolled in the National Cadet Corps (NCC) under the present legal framework, noting that the NCC Act of 1948 only allows “students of the male sex” and “students of the female sex.”

Justice N. Nagaresh acknowledged that while transgender individuals deserve equal opportunity, creating a separate NCC division would require executive policy changes and legislative intervention.

The Court also directed the Registry to send a copy of its judgment to the Union Ministries of Defence and Law & Justice for their consideration.

[Janvin Cleetus v Union of India & ors]

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to respond to a petition seeking educational facilities for street and destitute children, stressing that authorities “cannot play dumb” to their constitutional obligations.

The Division Bench observed that both governments are duty-bound to ensure free and compulsory education for all children under constitutional and statutory mandates. Highlighting the right to education as a fundamental right, irrespective of socioeconomic background, the Court asked for concrete action plans to identify and enrol out-of-school children.

The Court also impleaded the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) as a party and sought its response.

[Justice For All v Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has sharply criticised the shoe-throwing incident targeting Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, calling it “deplorable” and damaging to the dignity of both the Bar and the Bench.

Hearing a PIL seeking the removal of related videos and anonymity for offenders to curb publicity-driven acts, the Bench urged preventive measures to maintain decorum and respect for judicial institutions.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on December 4, 2025.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a crucial hearing for January 21 in the ongoing symbol and party name disputes involving rival factions of the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).

The petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) challenging the Election Commission's decision to recognise the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and grant them the 'bow and arrow' election symbol was listed before a bench today.

The court will address multiple petitions concerning the allocation of party symbols and official names between competing groups, a decision that could significantly impact Maharashtra's political landscape ahead of the upcoming elections.

[Uddhav Thackerey V Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde & Anr.]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought a response from the Haryana government on a PIL filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging misuse of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act by a private individual.

The petition claims that the accused unlawfully harassed and extorted money from cattle transporters while acting beyond any legal authority under the cattle protection law.

The Bench issued notice to the State government and observed that unchecked delegation of such powers could enable vigilantism, violating Articles 14 and 21 by endangering personal liberty and the rule of law.

[NFIW v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

The Supreme Court is set to determine whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) can conduct a “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of electoral rolls across various states. The issue arises in a batch of petitions challenging the SIR process initiated in Bihar and now extended to over 10 states.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard arguments and issued notice to the ECI, directing it to respond ahead of hearings scheduled for November 26 and 27, 2025

While hearing the case, the Court remarked that the ECI must adopt best practices and account for local conditions in each state.