Arvind Kejriwal has announced a boycott of the excise policy case proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, citing a loss of confidence in impartial adjudication.

This decision follows the Court’s recent refusal to grant Kejriwal’s recusal application. In a letter to the Judge, Kejriwal invoked Gandhian principles of Satyagraha, stating he is prepared to face the legal consequences of withdrawing his defense.

The Court previously observed that seeking recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.

Kejriwal argued that the language of that dismissal further evidenced a conflict, making participation a "disservice to the judiciary."

[Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation]

The Supreme Court held that courts lack the jurisdiction to compel an accused to surrender before a trial court while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that if a court denies bail, it may do so, but it cannot mandate a surrender.

The Court emphasized that in complaint cases, police cannot arrest an accused unless a non-bailable warrant is issued.

This ruling came while hearing an appeal against a Jharkhand High Court order, with the top court noting that such unauthorized directions lead to unnecessary litigation.

[Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a Naib court constable accused of accepting a ₹150 bribe in 1991, questioning the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for conducting a raid inside a courtroom during active proceedings.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that the ACB conducted the trap "under the nose of the Magistrate" without seeking prior permission from the presiding officer or District Judge.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential "demand" for illegal gratification, noting inconsistent statements from the complainant.

Highlighting that suspicion cannot replace proof, the Court acquitted the accused of all charges.

[Ram Prashad v. State of NCT of Delhi]

Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni has moved the Karnataka High Court to challenge a trial court’s order sentencing him to life imprisonment for the 2016 murder of BJP leader Yogesh Gowda.

The appeal seeks to overturn the April 15 conviction and subsequent sentencing for criminal conspiracy and murder. Gowda was killed in his Dharwad gym, a case later investigated by the CBI.

Although the Supreme Court initially granted Kulkarni bail in 2021, it was cancelled in 2025 due to witness tampering allegations. 

Kulkarni has also requested a stay on the trial court's judgment pending the High Court's final decision.

[Vinay Kulkarni v. State of Karnataka]

Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court denied his anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of defamation and forgery.

The case stems from a press conference where Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan, wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets.

While Khera argued the proceedings are politically motivated, the High Court observed that custodial interrogation is necessary to identify the source of the allegedly forged documents.

The Court noted that dragging a private citizen into "political rhetoric" justified deeper investigation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

[Pawan Khera v. State of Assam]

The Delhi High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against industrialist Bina Modi, senior advocate Lalit Bhasin and security officer Surendra Prasad in connection with the alleged assault of Samir Modi during a 2024 board meeting of Godfrey Phillips India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order after the parties informed the Court that the dispute had been amicably settled.

Samir Modi, appearing through video conferencing, confirmed that he had withdrawn his complaint and had no objection to quashing of the case.

Delhi Police had earlier informed the Court that insufficient evidence was found against Bina Modi and Lalit Bhasin.

[Bina Modi v. State & Anr. & other connected matter]

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the recommendations and reports of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act are mandatory in nature and not merely advisory.

The Court observed that once the ICC finds an employee guilty of sexual harassment, the employer or district officer must treat it as misconduct and proceed under the applicable service rules.

Justice Manish Mathur emphasised that the objective of the POSH Act is to ensure a safe and harmonious workplace, and therefore ICC proceedings must remain fair, transparent and free from external pressure.

The Court also quashed the suspension orders passed against ICC members, noting absence of proper reasoning and application of mind.

[Km. Sunita Devi v. State Of U.P.]

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against the man accused of operating the “Bangalore Metro Chicks” Instagram page, which allegedly uploaded secretly recorded videos and images of women commuters without their consent.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna strongly criticised the conduct, observing that women were not being left safe “anywhere.”

The petitioner argued that the content was comparable to CCTV footage and also raised procedural objections regarding the investigation. However, the Court rejected these submissions and held that technicalities could not override the seriousness of such acts.

An FIR had been registered against the accused for offences including voyeurism and violations under the Information Technology Act.

Delhi High Court quashed the suspension of Ramanujan College Principal, Professor Rasal Singh, ruling that the order was "stigmatic" and procedurally flawed. 

The Court observed that the suspension was based on an ad hoc committee's findings rather than a formal inquiry by an Internal Complaints Committee as mandated by the POSH Act, 2013. 

Emphasizing that creating parallel, extra-statutory committees to probe sexual harassment allegations violates natural justice and the specialized statutory framework of the POSH Act. 

Furthermore, the Court held that using terms like "serious misconduct" in the order caused undue prejudice before an inquiry was completed, thereby compromising the presumption of innocence.

[Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi]

The Karnataka High Court held that an accused cannot be forced to share their mobile phone's live GPS location with investigating officers as a condition for bail.

Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that while standard conditions remain valid, continuous electronic surveillance through location tracking crosses the boundary of permissible legal restrictions.

The ruling came during a plea for the relaxation of bail conditions for an individual accused of extortion. Although the petitioner’s prayer was noted as vague, the Court proactively quashed the requirement to keep mobile location services active.

The Court emphasized that such a mandate is not a sustainable condition for bail.

[Shashi Kumar v. State of Karnataka]

The Allahabad High Court criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for “chasing couples” and investigating marriages of consenting adults instead of focusing on actual crimes.

Quashing an FIR lodged by a woman’s father against a married couple, the Court observed that major individuals are free to choose whom they marry and live with.

It termed the growing practice of registering criminal cases at the instance of disapproving families as a “disturbing trend” and warned that such police actions are illegal and sometimes even criminal in nature.

The Court directed senior State authorities to take corrective measures to prevent unnecessary interference in consensual adult relationships.

Karnataka HC accepted an unconditional apology from actor Ranveer Singh regarding his controversial mimicry of a deity depicted in Kantara.

The Court recorded Singh’s undertaking to visit the Chamundi Hill Temple in Mysore within four weeks as an act of making amends for his remarks made at the International Film Festival of India.

While the actor maintained he had no intention of hurting religious sentiments, the Court emphasized the impact of a celebrity's words and noted it would include an admonishment in its final order to deter similar conduct.

The criminal proceedings under the BNS were disposed of in light of the affidavit.

[Ranveer Singh v. State of Karnataka]