The Jharkhand High Court has held that criminal revision petitions remain maintainable even when concurrent jurisdiction exists with sessions courts.

However, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent powers if an equally efficacious remedy is available before the Sessions Judge.

The court clarified that revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC can be invoked directly before high courts in appropriate cases, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies at lower judicial levels.

On the facts of the case, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Sessions Judge.

[Shree Kumar Lakhotia v. State of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court held that a husband who married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, could not invoke Muslim personal law to seek restitution of conjugal rights.

The petitioner contended that his personal law permitted multiple marriages and that the respondent had been aware of these rights. 

The High Court rejected the argument and clarified that once parties registered their marriage under the Act, the statutory framework exclusively governed all matrimonial rights and obligations.

The Court noted that the petitioner had also suppressed an earlier marriage and a child, and upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of the restitution petition on grounds of concealment and lack of legal merit.

[Md Akil Alam v Tumpa Chakravarty]

The Jharkhand High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Mahesh Tewari after a viral video showed him in a heated argument with a single judge during a hearing.

The incident took place in a case concerning the disconnection of a woman’s electricity supply over unpaid bills. The lawyer sought leniency on humanitarian grounds, but the judge insisted on following legal precedent.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan took cognisance of the conduct and listed the contempt hearing for November 11, 2025.

A detailed order is awaited.

[Court on its own motion v Mahesh Tewari]

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to issue and implement guidelines for HIV testing and treatment of prisoners under the framework of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

The order was passed by a Division Bench that was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a convict who refused to undergo an HIV test upon being admitted to the jail.

Referring to Section 13 of the Act, which empowered the Central or State government to take measures to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Court directed that the proposal be placed on record within six weeks.

[Mithilesh Kumhar @ Mithilesh Pandit v State of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court has directed state authorities to strictly implement the plastic ban across the state, criticising their complete failure in enforcing the environmental legislation.

The Jharkhand High Court has held that corruption, lack of infrastructure, and weak enforcement have rendered the State's ban on plastic carry bags and single-use plastics ineffective.

The court ordered the formation of special monitoring committees and mandated regular compliance reports, noting that widespread plastic pollution continues to damage Jharkhand's ecosystem despite the existing legal prohibition.

The Jharkhand High Court, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, directed the State Bar Council to take action against advocate Rakesh Kumar for threatening the judge after the rejection of anticipatory bail pleas in a land-grabbing case.

The Court labelled the lawyer's conduct as “deprecable” and fit for criminal contempt since it undermined judicial dignity and obstructed justice.  

The Court noted that such behaviour attacks the entire judiciary’s credibility.

While refraining from contempt proceedings due to requests from senior bar members, the Court emphasised the seriousness of land-grabbing crimes in Jharkhand and upheld the bail rejection. 

[Anil Kumar & Ors v State]

The Jharkhand High Court, through JHALSA, has virtually inaugurated Legal Services Clinics in all districts of the state under the NALSA Veer Parivar Sahayata Yojana 2025, specifically to serve defence personnel, ex-servicemen, and their dependents. 

The launch took place on September 13 at Kerketta Auditorium, Dipatoli Cantonment, Ranchi, with Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Patron-in-Chief, JHALSA) and other senior judiciary and defence officials presiding. 

Simultaneously, a 90-day awareness campaign was launched to spread information, identify beneficiaries, and ensure immediate legal aid under the scheme.

The Jharkhand High Court stressed that delays in executing arbitral awards undermine the objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the executing court to conclude proceedings by November 30, 2025.

Referring to Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), the Court reiterated that execution must ordinarily finish within six months.

Additionally, the court also cited Chopra Fabricators (2023) and Periyammal v. Rajamani (2025), emphasising that timely execution is essential to justice.

[R.K. Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that government employees cannot claim correction of their date of birth (DOB) in service records as a matter of right at the end of their careers especially when the request comes after long delay.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that even if supported by a valid matriculation certificate, belated correction requests, even after more than two decades, are not permissible. 

The court further observed that allowing such changes at a late stage can cause administrative disruption and may be misused to extend service. The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed, reinforcing procedural integrity.

[Uma Ram vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.]

The Jharkhand High Court held that Civil Judges (Senior Division) designated as Commercial Courts have jurisdiction to try trademark infringement suits valued between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore.

A Bench of Chief Justice Chauhan and Justice Sujit Prasad allowed the appeal filed by M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. over the use of the mark “Grihasti Bhog.”

The Court clarified that Civil Judges (Senior Division) hold original jurisdiction as per a notification, while District Judges function as Commercial Appellate Courts. It quashed the trial court’s July 2024 order and restored the suit for trial.

[M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v I.S.D.S. Private Limited and others]

On August 13, the Jharkhand High Court directed BIT Mesra to pay ₹20 lakh compensation to the parents of Raja Paswan, a Dalit diploma student murdered on campus in 2024.

Justice Sanjay Prasad held the college responsible for gross security lapses, including the absence of a boundary wall, inactive CCTVs, and allowing outsiders inside.

The Court issued safety guidelines for all Jharkhand colleges mandating hospital tie-ups, on-campus medical facilities, adequate security, CCTV coverage, grievance cells, and SOPs. Citing Article 21, it stressed students’ right to life.

The bail pleas of four accused were rejected, and police were told to complete a fair investigation.

(Mausam Kumar Singh & Ors v State of Jharkhand & Ors)

The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for allegedly accusing Amit Shah of being involved in a murder case. The complaint was filed by BJP member Pratap Katiyar.

In February, the Jharkhand High Court quashed Gandhi’s petition to quash the criminal defamation case. After he failed to appear in court, the Chaibasa court issued a non-bailable warrant on 27th February.

A second warrant was later issued, directing him to appear on 26th June. Gandhi again approached the High Court, which directed him to appear before the trial court.

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]