The Jharkhand High Court has asked the state’s Director General of Police to submit a personal affidavit detailing steps taken to enforce the 2005 law banning beef.

The direction came while hearing a PIL by Shyamanand Pandey, who alleged illegal beef sale in Ranchi. The Court noted that its earlier orders hadn’t been fully followed and sought updates on action taken.

It also asked for details about unauthorised slaughterhouses, inspections of meat shops, and adherence to rules. The Court questioned whether slaughterhouses are mandatory in municipal areas. Hearing resumes August 26.

The Jharkhand High Court, led by Justice Ananda Sen, condemned the practice of an investigating officer summoning a defence counsel, emphasizing that communication between an advocate and their client is privileged.

The court stayed the summons issued by the Railway Protection Force to advocate Agniva Sarkar, who represented accused in a case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996.

The summons sought Sarkar’s statement after an accused claimed Sarkar assured support in continuing unlawful activities.

The court noted the summons appeared aimed at extracting privileged communication and prohibited further similar notices until the petition’s disposal, safeguarding lawyer-client confidentiality. [Agniva Sarkar v The Union of India & Ors]

The Jharkhand High Court has accepted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal seeking an enhancement of sentence for RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar treasury case of the fodder scam.

Convicted in 2018 for misappropriating ₹89.27 lakh, Lalu was sentenced by a special CBI court to 3½ years in prison, while the maximum penalty permitted is seven years.

The CBI also requested enhanced punishment for co-accused Beck Julius and Subir Bhattacharya.

A division bench of Justices Mukhopadhyay and Nath admitted the case, with further hearings scheduled after three months.

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a family court order granting maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor children under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court held that if a widow is unable to maintain herself and the in-laws hold coparcenary property, they are legally bound to provide maintenance.

The bench found that the widow had no source of income, the joint family property remained unpartitioned, and statutory conditions were met.

The in-laws’ appeal challenging the order was dismissed, confirming their obligation to support her and the children. (Surendra Das & Anr. v. Anita Das & Ors.)

The Jharkhand High Court held that allegations of a spouse's mental illness under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act must be supported by strong, reliable evidence like psychiatric records or continuous treatment history.

A division bench dismissed a husband's divorce plea citing cruelty, desertion, and his wife's mental illness, finding no substantial proof. The Court emphasized that mere allegations are insufficient to dissolve a marriage.

The court also noted the wife's genuine willingness to continue the marriage and her commitment to fulfilling her marital responsibilities with love and care.

The Jharkhand High Court has directed a man to pay Rs 90,000 per month, i.e. Rs 50,000 to his estranged wife and Rs 40,000 as child support for their autistic son, after an RTI reply revealed his annual income of Rs 27 lakh, contradicting his previous false claim of unemployment.

The Court criticised the family court for accepting the false affidavit and recognised the wife’s full-time caregiving responsibilities and the high costs of autism care, therapy, and special education.

Emphasising the father’s legal responsibility, the Court called the abandonment of an autistic child both a moral and legal failure.

The Jharkhand High Court reprimanded a judicial magistrate from Hazaribagh for remanding a 66-year-old man to custody, disregarding Supreme Court rulings that protect an accused from arrest once cognisance has been taken.

The bench, led by Justice Ananda Sen, pointed out the magistrate’s failure to adhere to binding precedents, particularly in the Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI judgment, which laid down clear procedures that once cognisance is taken, accused persons in complaint cases should be summoned, not arrested, without justification.

Despite previous judicial sensitisation efforts, the court condemned this oversight and directed the magistrate to undergo a two-day online training conducted by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy to reinforce safeguards for personal liberty.

Congress leader and Lok Sabha Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant issued against him by the Chaibasa MP-MLA Special Court in a 2018 defamation case. 

The warrant, dated May 22, 2025, mandates Gandhi's personal appearance on June 26.  His counsel argues that a pending plea before the High Court seeking exemption from appearance makes the warrant premature.

The case, filed by BJP leader Pratap Katiyar, concerns Gandhi’s remarks allegedly aimed at then-BJP President Amit Shah, which the complainant claims were defamatory.

The Jharkhand High Court struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, introduced via Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and adopted by Jharkhand, which allowed the state to invalidate registrations on vague "public policy" grounds. 

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 Basant Nahata judgment, the court ruled the provision unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 246, stressing that interpreting "public policy" lies with the judiciary, not the executive.

The 2015 notification issued under this provision was also quashed.

All actions taken by Sub-Registrars under this rule now stand void, granting relief to the petitioners, including Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA). 

In a major digitisation push, the Jharkhand High Court distributed Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 devices to 496 judicial officers across civil courts in the state.

The initiative, approved by the Chief Justice and recommended by the Computer and Digitisation Committee, aims to improve judicial efficiency, especially amid a shortage of stenographers.

The tablets offer features like Speech-to-Text, AI tools, S Pen support, and a powerful processor to assist in drafting orders and multitasking. The devices were handed over at the High Court premises ahead of the summer vacation, with officers welcoming the move.

The Jharkhand government has launched a dedicated health insurance scheme for advocates and their families under the Rajyakarmi Swasthya Beema Yojana.

The scheme offers cashless treatment coverage of up to ₹5 lakh for general ailments and up to ₹10 lakh for critical illnesses.

Announcing the initiative, the Chief Minister highlighted the state’s efforts to reduce healthcare-related financial burdens for those in public service.

He also emphasized inclusivity in education, mentioning the Guru Credit Card Yojana and plans for a premier law university in the state. So far, 14,937 advocates and their family members have enrolled in the scheme.

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 Jharkhand High Court has ruled that legal heirs cannot be held liable for GST dues under Section 93(1)(a) of the CGST Act unless there is clear evidence showing they continued the deceased's business.

The case involved Rishi Shangari, who had obtained a separate GST registration after his father's death. Despite no proof of business continuation, the tax department issued orders against him.

The Court held that initiating proceedings without such proof was perverse and unsustainable.

Accordingly, the impugned tax order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed in the petitioner’s favor. (Rishi Shangari v. Union of India)