The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the pendency of a criminal case does not justify withholding revenue extracts for the sale of land.

Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasized that even an individual facing criminal charges retains the right to sell their property.

The case involved Arun Dev Singh, who sought a copy of the revenue records (Fard Intikhab) for land he intended to sell. Despite the absence of any connection between the criminal case and the land in question, the Tehsildar delayed the issuance pending a No-Objection Certificate from the Crime Branch.

The Court found this action unjustified and directed the Tehsildar to provide the necessary documents within seven days.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that foreign companies cannot claim the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the judgment in X Corp v. Union of India, holding that the right is available only to Indian citizens. The Court also upheld the validity of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the government’s Sahyog portal.

The Court observed that intermediaries are bound to comply with Indian laws and cannot seek constitutional protections reserved for citizens.

X Corp (formerly Twitter) has announced its intention to appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s recent decision that upheld the legality of the Sahyog portal, used for issuing content takedown orders. 

The company stated that it would move the appeal to defend the free speech of its users. 

X argued that the High Court’s judgment enables millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders through the portal without procedural safeguards. 

The appeal will address whether the ruling is consistent with constitutional guarantees and established jurisprudence on intermediary liability. 

[X Corp v. Union of India]

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Karnataka government's plea challenging the quashing of an FIR against DM Gaming Pvt. Ltd. for operating a poker club under gambling laws.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision, stating there was no ground to interfere.

However, the Court refrained from adjudicating whether poker is a game of skill or chance, leaving the legal question open for future resolution.

The case arose from allegations that the Golden Ace Poker Room in Bengaluru conducted gambling disguised as poker, which the High Court had previously held to be lawful under skill-based gaming rules.

[State of Karnataka v DM Gaming Pvt Ltd & Ors].

The Delhi High Court has referred significant constitutional questions to a Full Bench concerning the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, questioned whether the AFT possesses the authority to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of provisions under the Navy Act, such as Section 9, which pertains to the discharge of personnel.

This issue arose in a case involving a Navy officer who challenged their discharge following sex reassignment surgery, arguing that the Navy's regulations were unconstitutional for not recognizing transgender identities.

The Full Bench will also consider whether this principle extends to other tribunals.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued notice to the Union government in a petition challenging Section 20(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), under which prosecution officials may “examine and scrutinise” police chargesheets in offences punishable with 7–10 years’ imprisonment. 

The petitioner argues that this power to vet chargesheets encroaches upon the independent domain of police investigation, violating Articles 14 and 21 by introducing arbitrary interference. 

A bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Raghunandan Rao will hear the matter further once the Union government files its reply.

The Supreme Court permitted certified manufacturers to produce green firecrackers in Delhi and the NCR but barred their sale in these regions amid severe air pollution concerns.

The Court emphasised balancing public health with economic livelihood by allowing manufacture with strict compliance to certifications from NEERI and PESO, subject to an undertaking that no sales occur in prohibited areas.

The Court also asked the Central government to consult all stakeholders and propose a balanced solution by the next hearing on October 8. The decision aligns with the 2018 Arjun Gopal case, which allowed green crackers under strict conditions.

The Delhi High Court dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed by Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) after respondents objected that it relied on fabricated extracts of Supreme Court judgments, allegedly generated by AI (ChatGPT).

Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that several judicial precedents cited by GWA did not exist or were misquoted, including incorrect references to Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi and fabricated judgments from unreliable sources.

Respondents sought criminal action for presenting false evidence.

The Court permitted withdrawal and limited proceedings to impugned orders. Senior Advocates Rakesh Tiku and N Hariharan represented the parties.

(Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh)

The Supreme Court ruled that the relevant date to determine “senior citizen” status under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is the date of filing the application before the Maintenance Tribunal, not the date of adjudication.

The Court allowed the appeal of 80-year-old Kamalakant Mishra, whose son had taken possession of his properties.

The Bombay High Court had struck down the eviction order since the son had crossed 60 during the proceedings. 

The Supreme Court held that because the son was 59 at the time of filing, the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction.

[Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others]

The Karnataka High Court, led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi, refused to stay the State’s socio-economic and educational survey (caste survey) but mandated that participation must be voluntary and that data collected remain confidential.

The Court ordered the Commission to notify enumerators to inform participants about the voluntary nature of the survey and barred any coercion for participation.

Petitioners challenged the survey as a census disguised to intrude on privacy, but the State assured adequate safeguards.

The Court allowed further submissions while permitting the survey to continue with these protections.

[Rajya Vokkaliga Sangha v. Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission and Ors]

The Madras High Court has ruled that Sainik Schools are not bound by the Right to Education (RTE) Act or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act.

The judgment came in a case where a minor challenged the denial of admission for failing the school’s eye fitness standard.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that Sainik Schools, administered by the Sainik School Society under the Ministry of Defence, have specialised objectives to prepare cadets for the National Defence and Naval Academies.

The Court held that adhering to strict medical standards, including vision requirements, is lawful and essential for military training.

[M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others]

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has reserved its decision in the matter concerning the appointment of a judicial officer, who has completed 7 years in the Bar, as a District Judge against the Bar Vacancy.

The matter was previously referred to a larger bench by a 3-judge bench.

During the three-day-long hearing, the petitioner sought a reconsideration of the Dheeraj Mor v Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decision, where the Court held that civil judges are ineligible to seek direct recruitment to the post of District Judge in the bar quota.

The petitioners also contended that the 7-year-old practice rule for advocates under Article 233(2) cannot be interpreted to be the same as 7 continuous years of practice as per the precedent.

[Rejanish KV v K Deepa]

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has admitted a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioners allege the Act is gender-biased, arbitrarily classifies men as perpetrators and women as victims, and infringes on property rights, violating Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution.

They contend that even minor domestic disputes are treated as violence, enabling the aggrieved party to exercise unchecked power.

The petition also raises concerns about jurisdictional overreach, interim maintenance orders, and the potential for vexatious proceedings. The matter is listed for further consideration.

[Tasleem Arif Dar and Ors vs Union of India and Ors]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a plea of estoppel cannot be maintained against the Government when it exercises its legislative, sovereign, or executive functions.

The ruling came in a case where land allottees in Dadra and Nagar Haveli argued that their Alwara lands could not be forfeited for failing to cultivate them.

The Court rejected this claim, holding that the allotments were conditional tenures. Since the allottees failed to meet the conditions, they were not entitled to retain the land or claim compensation.

[Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.]