The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

The Jharkhand HC recently held that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, a Labour Court can modify a punishment even if the initial enquiry was fair. 

The Court ruled that penalties must not be shockingly disproportionate.

The case involved a workman discharged in 1984 for allegedly abusing a doctor. The Court found the workman was in severe pain due to an unremoved stitch and was unfairly dismissed.

Noting the family's 40-year struggle, the Court awarded full back wages and benefits to the deceased workman’s legal heirs.

[The Management of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi w/o late C.K. Singh & Ors.]

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals in the 23-year-old death case of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyusha, ruling out allegations of murder and rape.

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence established death by poisoning. The Court noted that Prathyusha and her boyfriend, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, had consumed poison amid opposition to their relationship, though Reddy survived.

Rejecting the defence of accidental intake, the Court found Reddy guilty of abetment to suicide for procuring the poison and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

It also termed the postmortem conducted by Dr. Muni Swamy unprofessional.

[Gudipalli Siddharta Reddy v. State (C.B.I.)]

The Jharkhand High Court directed registration of an FIR after five children suffering from thalassemia were allegedly infected with HIV due to transfusion of contaminated blood.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that when a complaint discloses a serious cognisable offence, police are duty-bound to register an FIR without delay. 

The Court noted that infected blood falls within the ambit of “spurious drugs” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, attracting criminal liability. Emphasising the vulnerability of the affected children from marginalised backgrounds, the Court ordered immediate action upon a written complaint. 

The Court listed the matter for compliance review on February 18, 2026.

[Deepika H & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.]

The Supreme Court requested the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the unconditional apology of an advocate facing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings over a heated courtroom exchange.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant observed that while judicial authority must be respected, professional friction can arise during court proceedings.

The Court noted that the advocate had expressed remorse and was willing to tender an unconditional apology.

Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the advocate to file an affidavit of apology before the High Court and requested the contempt bench to pass appropriate orders after due consideration.

[Mahesh Tiwari v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court held that rising incidents of child trafficking in the State require immediate systemic intervention by the authorities.

The Court observed that traffickers often enter Jharkhand from other States under the garb of doing business and engage in serious criminal activities, including human trafficking.

It noted serious lapses in investigation, including the delayed constitution of a Special Investigation Team years after the FIR was lodged. The Court linked child trafficking to long-term physical, psychological, and social harm to victims.

It directed the State Home Department to frame guidelines for identification of outsiders and mandatory police permission.

[Chandramuni Urain v. Director General of Police, Jharkhand & Ors.]

The Jharkhand High Court held that the actions of the Jharkhand University of Technology and AICTE prima facie reflected corrupt practices that endangered the academic future of students.

The Court observed that despite AICTE granting approval for the 2025–26 academic session, JUT failed to grant affiliation and register 60 diploma students, effectively trapping them without examination rights.

It noted that students were admitted under valid approval but left in an uncertain position.

The Court directed the CBI to investigate how the students were trapped and identify the role played by the authorities, and ordered submission of a sealed report within two weeks.

[Dhanbad Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.]

The Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to a woman, holding that humiliating a wife over pre-marriage photographs amounts to mental cruelty.

The Court found that the husband accessed the wife’s Google Drive, transferred photographs from her past relationship, and shared them with his family members, leading to her humiliation and character assassination. It held that such conduct caused deep mental agony, making cohabitation impossible.

Emphasising that marriage is founded on trust and respect, the Bench observed that once trust is broken, it is irreparable. Though physical assault was not proved, the Court clarified that cruelty can be psychological.

The Court granted divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The law ministry on January 2, 2026, issued a notification appointing Justice Mahesh Sharadchandra Sonak, currently a Bombay High Court judge, as the next Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

He is set to assume charge after incumbent Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan demits office on January 8 upon attaining the age of 62.

His name was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium last month, which also proposed four other judges for leadership roles in various High Courts.

Justice Sonak was appointed as a Bombay High Court judge on June 21, 2013, and is due to retire on November 27, 2026.

The Jharkhand High Court directed the registration of FIRs and investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against officials responsible for allowing illegal constructions and encroachments on land acquired for the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS).

The Court held that residents whose houses were later demolished due to such encroachments are entitled to compensation.

However, it clarified that the compensation must be recovered from the erring officials and builders who permitted or facilitated the illegal constructions, and not from the State exchequer.

The Court also ordered initiation of departmental proceedings to fix accountability. The matter is listed for further hearing.

[Jyoti Sharma v. State of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the poor quality of food being served to inmates across various district jails in the State. The court further directed all DLSA and JHALSA to conduct surprise inspections to verify whether meals are being supplied as per the Jail Manual.

The proceeding stems from a newspaper report highlighting the substandard meals being provided, emphasizing that adequate nutrition is a fundamental right of all prisoners, regardless of their legal status.

A division bench of was informed by the State's counsel that the "quality of food has been improved and now, they are being provided with the food as per the jail manual".

[Akash Kumar Roy v. National Investigating Agency]

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]