The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that GST registration cannot substitute or override the requirement of obtaining a valid trade licence under relevant regulatory laws.

The Court clarified that while GST registration reflects tax compliance, it does not confer the right to conduct any business activity without proper authorisation.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that tax payment legitimised unlicensed trade, the Court termed such a claim “absurd” and reaffirmed that business operations must conform to statutory licensing norms.

Upholding the provisions of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rules, 2017, the Court dismissed the petitions challenging the licensing requirement.

[Ravi Kumar v Union Territory of J&K & Ors.]

The Central Government has reappointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Ashok Bhushan as Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved his tenure extension until he attains the age of 70 on July 4, 2026.

Justice Bhushan, who has served as NCLAT Chairperson since November 2021, has presided over significant cases involving insolvency, corporate governance, and competition law.

A former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, he also served as a Supreme Court judge from 2016 to 2021.

The Madras High Court ruled that divorced daughters are entitled to receive their parents’ freedom fighters’ pension, rejecting the Centre’s contention that only unmarried, dependent daughters qualify.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the pension represents national gratitude for sacrifices made during the independence struggle and cannot be equated with compassionate appointment schemes.

Setting aside the Centre’s refusal to transfer the pension, the Court directed authorities to release it to the divorced daughter of the deceased freedom fighter, observing that entitlement flows from recognition of national service, not marital status.

[Thillai Lokanathan v. Deputy Secretary, MHA]

The Delhi High Court, per Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, held that briefing counsels and law firms are responsible for verifying the authenticity, finality, and pendency of case laws before citing them in court.

The Court noted that citing judgments under appeal, review, or pending proceedings without disclosure reflects a lack of candour and risks misleading the bench. It clarified that senior advocates engaged solely for arguments cannot be expected to perform such verification.

Accordingly, the duty to ensure the accuracy and finality of cited authorities rests on the briefing counsel or the instructing law firm.

[Renew Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Solar Energy Corporation of India]

The Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Sachin Datta, constituted a four-member committee to enhance crowdfunding efforts for rare disease treatments under the National Policy for Rare Diseases, 2021.

The committee, chaired by Rajiv Bahl, V.K. Paul and Joint Secretary-level officers from the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Department of Public Enterprises.

The Court directed the committee to raise donor awareness, mobilise CSR funds, and monitor policy implementation through monthly meetings, stressing a humane and inclusive approach to rare disease management.

[Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs Lovely Gusain v Union of India & Ors.]

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt was sworn in as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court following his transfer from the Gujarat High Court.

During the oath ceremony, Justice Bhatt said it was an honour to serve in the new court, adding, “I have come from the land of Lord Dwarkadhish and Somnath Mahadev to the land of Maa Narmada and Baba Mahakal to perform my pious obligations and constitutional duties.”

His transfer, recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium in August and notified on October 14, was earlier opposed by the Gujarat Bar, which had abstained from work in protest.

The Kerala High Court celebrated its 70th Establishment Day and Kerala Day by launching a Malayalam Legal Glossary containing 6,375 legal terms.

Released by Chief Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar, the glossary aims to promote clarity, accuracy, and uniformity in Malayalam legal terminology, aiding translation of judgments into Malayalam for wider public access.

The event also marked the full implementation of the e-Office system across all courts in Kerala and Lakshadweep, enabling paperless file management. Additionally, the Court launched Adalat.AI, a voice-to-text tool for recording witness statements digitally, streamlining case documentation and accessibility. 

The Supreme Court has settled a long-standing confusion in the legal fraternity, ruling that not every lawyer qualifies as an advocate under Indian law.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, while interpreting Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, held that in-house counsels, being salaried employees, cannot claim the attorney-client privilege, as they are not independent practitioners enrolled with a State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court stressed that advocacy demands independence, a quality compromised in employment. While in-house counsels may enjoy confidentiality under Section 134, full privilege applies only to advocates practising law independently. 

[Re Suo Motu Case on Summoning of Advocates, 2025]

The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to a passenger who fell ill after finding a worm in the biryani served onboard the Poorva Express.

The complainant, travelling from New Delhi to Jasidih in 2018, suffered vomiting and abdominal pain after consuming the contaminated food.

The Commission held IRCTC guilty of deficiency in service, observing that penalising the food contractor alone was inadequate given the passenger’s physical and mental distress.

The Court emphasised IRCTC’s duty to ensure quality standards and hygiene in food served to passengers.

[Saurav Raj v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC)]

The Karnataka High Court waived the ₹50,000 cost earlier imposed on a lawyer who had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to halt the release of the film Jolly LLB 3.

The Court had previously dismissed the plea as frivolous, observing that it had unnecessarily consumed judicial time. During the review hearing, counsel clarified that the petitioner, a newly enrolled advocate, was facing personal hardship following her father’s demise.

Taking note of these mitigating circumstances, the Court decided to waive the cost but cautioned the petitioner against misuse of PILs and reminded her of the responsibility attached to invoking judicial remedies.

The Delhi High Court directed the Director General (Prisons) to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) allowing open-prison inmates limited access to mobile phones. 

The order came in a petition filed by a life convict challenging his transfer from an open to a closed prison after a mobile phone and SIM cards were found in his possession.

The Court noted that under Rule 1270 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, no denial of privileges or transfer can occur without judicial appraisal.

Observing the need for regulated communication, the Court held that inmates should be allowed mobile use for basic purposes during authorised hours.

[Surender Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi]

The President of India issued a Warrant appointing Justice Surya Kant as the 53rd Chief Justice of India, effective November 24, 2025, following the retirement of Chief Justice BR Gavai on November 23.

The appointment followed the outgoing Chief Justice’s formal recommendation to the Union Government earlier in the week. Justice Surya Kant, presently the second senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court, will serve as CJI until February 9, 2027. 

The official communication marks the constitutional transition under Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India, which governs judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court has sworn in three new judges pursuant to the Centre’s transfer notification dated October 14, bringing its total strength to 44 judges.

Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Avneesh Jhingan were transferred from the Rajasthan High Court, while Justice C.S. Sudha joined from the Kerala High Court.

Justice Mehta is widely recognised for his 2017 judgment directing Rajasthan Police to appoint a transwoman constable. Justice Jhingan, known for his 2021 order advocating safe houses for inter-caste couples, has significant experience in civil and tax jurisprudence.

Justice Sudha previously held key administrative posts, including Registrar of NCLAT, before her elevation to the Kerala High Court in 2021.