The Supreme Court has proposed that candidates in uncontested elections should secure a minimum vote share to be declared elected, calling it a “progressive step” to uphold democratic legitimacy.

The court proposed this while hearing a PIL by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which questioned the constitutionality of declaring unopposed candidates elected without any vote under Section 53(2) of the RPA, 1951.

The Court suggested that even sole candidates must secure a minimum vote share such as 10-15% to reflect democratic legitimacy and urged the Centre and ECI to consider legal amendments, seeking a response in four weeks.

The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 petition filed by a lawyer challenging a Mumbai family court order. 

The Bench noted that even a lawyer with basic legal knowledge wouldn’t seek such reliefs under Article 32, which is meant only for enforcing fundamental rights against the State.

The court ordered the plea to be frivolous, malicious, and a gross misuse of constitutional remedies. The court criticized the misuse of judicial time and rejected the lawyer’s plea to withdraw the petition.

The Court imposed ₹5 lakh in costs to be paid to NALSA within four weeks, failing which the matter will be relisted.

The Delhi High Court reprimanded the Delhi government and DDA for failing to provide official residences for judicial officers, warning them not to test the court’s patience.

The bench expressed frustration over repeated delays and said it felt like the court was "virtually begging." A ₹40 crore building in Dwarka was even demolished due to poor construction.

Despite earlier claims, no formal land allotment was made. The court highlighted a significant shortfall, with only 348 flats available against a sanctioned strength of 897 judicial officers.

The court granted three weeks for action, urging swift release of funds and stressing urgency in addressing judges’ housing needs. Next hearing on May 29. 

The Karnataka High Court has issued a series of directives to prevent the misuse of national emblems, flags, and symbols by unauthorized individuals. A Bench emphasized the need to preserve the honour and pride of these national icons.

The Court criticized ex-legislators and former officials for misusing symbols on letterheads and vehicles, calling such conduct “unfortunate and depreciable.” Authorities were directed to enforce laws like the Emblems and Names Act, 1950, and the State Emblem Act, 2005 strictly. 

The State was also ordered to issue public notices urging individuals to remove all unauthorised flags, emblems, names, symbols, logos etc, within four weeks and conduct awareness campaigns involving students and traffic police to prevent misuse.

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an FIR against a government officer accused under the SC/ST Act for allegedly calling a woman an "insane Adivasi" and pushing her during an RTI-related visit.

The Court held that "Adivasi" is not a recognized caste or tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and the complainant failed to prove she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.

The court also noted that the FIR under the "SC/ST Act, 2016," is invalid, and that the IPC sections invoked were either non-cognizable or unsupported by evidence.

Calling the case an abuse of legal process, the Court quashed the FIR.

The Supreme Court has allowed the UGC to finalize and notify the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, which deal with ragging, sexual harassment, and discrimination based on caste, gender, and disability in higher educational institutions.

The PIL stems from the 2016 suicide of PhD scholar Rohith Vemula at Hyderabad Central University, allegedly due to caste-based discrimination.

The bench clarified that the regulations will supplement recommendations of the National Task Force formed in Amit Kumar v. Union of India. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising opposed merging various issues under one regulation and dilution of detailed definitions of discrimination.

However, the Court emphasized the need for immediate protection for affected students and directed petitioners to submit suggestions to the Task Force. 

The Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) has urged the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider its decision to transfer four Karnataka High Court judges.

In a letter to the Chief Justice of India, the KSBC highlighted concerns about judicial independence and institutional stability, warning that abrupt transfers may undermine public trust and hinder the judiciary’s efficiency.

The Advocates' Association, Bengaluru (AAB), abstained from work on April 23 to protest the transfer recommendation.

The decision was taken "to infuse inclusivity and diversity at the level of High Courts and to strengthen the quality of administration of justice."

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed that the right of two consenting adults to marry is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of family or societal approval.

The court said, while hearing a protection plea, emphasized that personal liberty, dignity, and the freedom to choose one’s life partner are constitutionally guaranteed.

The Court directed authorities to verify the couple’s age and marital status, and if confirmed, to ensure their safety without impeding their liberty.

The court clarified that the order doesn’t validate the marriage but protects constitutional rights pending verification. (Anamika Devi Vs UT Of J&K)

In the wake of the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of at least 26 tourists, Advocate Vishal Tiwari has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court.

The petition urges the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and state governments to implement the safety measures for tourists, especially in hilly and remote areas that are used by large crowds during the summer season. 

Key demands include the deployment of armed security personnel at popular tourist sites, the establishment of emergency medical facilities, and the formation of a dedicated special force to ensure tourist safety. The PIL also highlights the need for adherence to international counter-terrorism guidelines for protecting tourists.

The Supreme Court has advised a petitioner, who allegedly developed 100% lower limb disability after receiving the Covishield vaccine, to pursue a civil suit for damages instead of a writ petition.

The court observed that a writ petition could take years to resolve, while a civil suit might offer quicker relief.

The petition invoked constitutional rights and cited legal doctrines such as parens patriae, absolute liability, and restitution in integrum. 

The petitioner has sought direction against the Union Government and the Serum Institute of India for medical cover, reimbursement of expenses, and compensation for the disability caused by the vaccine. (Praveen Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.)

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear next week a plea seeking the removal of social media content containing BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s remarks against the judiciary and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

Dubey allegedly accused the CJI of being responsible for "all civil wars in the country", leading to widespread circulation of derogatory posts online.

Advocate Narender Mishra, representing the petitioner, informed the bench that letters to the Attorney General and Solicitor General requesting action had yielded no response.

In a related development, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has urged the Attorney General to permit the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey, terming his statements defamatory and contemptuous. 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's issued a notice to the state government in response to a PIL seeking live-streaming of the state's Legislative Assembly proceedings.

The petitioners argue that the implementation of live streaming for Legislative Assembly sessions to enhance transparency and uphold citizens' right to know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

They highlighted that despite a ₹21 crore central grant under the National eVidhan Application (NeVA), the state has not initiated live broadcasts.

The Court has directed the government to respond within four weeks.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling that set a three-month deadline for the President to act on Bills reserved by state Governors.

He termed the use of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces” and questioned the judiciary’s authority to issue directions to the President.

The Supreme Court had ruled that undue delays in granting assent must be justified, and the President’s decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 201.

Dhankhar warned against judicial overreach, asserting that India was not meant to be a democracy where judges function as lawmakers, the executive, and even as a "super Parliament".

The Orissa High Court imposed a ₹10,000 cost on Dr. Antaryami Mishra, who claimed he was wrongly denied the Padma Shri in favour of another person with the same name, a journalist. 

Mishra alleged he was the rightful recipient due to his literary contributions and 29 published books.

However, the Court found no supporting evidence, noting he failed to submit any proof despite multiple chances, and his case was based on vague phone calls from alleged government sources

The Court observed that such baseless claims demean the award’s prestige and waste judicial time. 

The Court also criticized the situation where, despite government verifications, identity confusion led to unnecessary legal proceedings.