The Delhi High Court questioned the Central Government regarding the prolonged vacancies for the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Members of the National Commission for Minorities.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the Commission could not function effectively in the absence of its leadership.

The Court emphasised urgency, stating, “You can’t have a Commission without the head. Don’t wait for the next hearing, get things moving.” 

The Court directed counsel representing the Government to obtain instructions and file a response. The Court has listed the matter for further proceedings.

[Mujahid Nafees v Union of India]

The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing the notional absorption of a 1997 waitlisted candidate by All India Radio, noting that waitlists cease once all selected candidates join.

A Division bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the candidate’s claim extinguished when vacancies were filled, and a 1999 assurance by government counsel could not override statutory recruitment rules.

The Court further held that treating waitlists as permanent appointment sources would prejudice future candidates and violate regulations, affirming that only selected candidates possess enforceable rights.

[The Union of India & Ors v Subit Kumar Das]

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai is examining whether the issue of limited promotional opportunities for entry-level judicial officers should be referred to a larger Bench.

The Court noted that two earlier Constitution Benches had taken differing views on appointments and promotions to the District Judiciary, involving questions of seniority, merit, and selection.

Senior Advocates presented conflicting opinions on the need for a larger Bench.

The Court will hear the case again on October 28–29 to decide on the reference and frame principles governing seniority and promotions across High Courts.

[Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa]

The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), in collaboration with the Delhi High Court Bar Association, will launch dedicated bus services connecting major courts and tribunals in the city.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, President of the Bar Association, announced that the services will begin shortly. Under the arrangement, DTC will operate three buses between the Delhi High Court and Tis Hazari Court, and similarly between the High Court and Saket Court.

The routes will also cover tribunals, commissions, and the Supreme Court. Litigants, law clerks, and advocates will be able to use the services by paying fixed fares.

The New York State court system has issued interim guidelines regulating the use of generative AI by judges and court staff.

The policy limits the use of AI tools to those approved by the court and requires all users to undergo mandatory AI training. It bars judges and staff from entering confidential or privileged information, or court-filed documents, into public generative AI platforms, allowing only secure, private models.

The guidelines aim to protect confidentiality and ensure compliance with ethical obligations. New York joins four other US states that have introduced similar policies for responsible AI use in the judiciary over the past year.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a conviction in a road accident case cannot stand unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that both lower courts failed to establish the accused’s identity and the vehicle’s involvement.

The informant’s statement lacked the car’s registration number, and there were inconsistencies in the vehicle’s description. The injured witness admitted he heard the driver’s name from his sister, making it hearsay.

The investigating officer also gave no clear basis for identification. The Court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

[Manoj Chauhan v State of Himachal and Ors.]

The Kerala Assembly on October 8 passed the Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) Act, 2025, becoming the first State to amend the Central Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The bill, aimed at addressing human-animal conflicts, empowers the Chief Wildlife Warden to order the shooting, tranquilisation, capture, or translocation of wild animals that attack humans or stray into settlements.

The bill also allows population control by non-lethal methods and enables the government to declare certain Schedule II animals as vermin for limited periods.

The bill will be sent to the President of India and will become law upon assent. The move seeks to balance human safety with wildlife protection.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai announced the extension of free public Wi-Fi to the entire main building of the Supreme Court of India.

Earlier, the facility was limited to courtrooms and select adjoining areas. The expansion aims to strengthen the Court’s digital infrastructure and enhance internet access for lawyers, law officers, litigants, and court staff across the premises.

Users can now connect from any part of the main building through a simple authentication process. The Chief Justice expressed hope that the initiative will benefit the Bar and all visitors to the Court.

The Delhi High Court held that the government cannot impose rigid fee control on private unaided schools, except to curb profiteering, commercialisation of education, or capitation fees.

The Court clarified that the Directorate of Education’s powers are limited to ensuring that schools do not make unreasonable profits or divert funds for unrelated purposes.

The ruling came in appeals concerning fee hike restrictions at Bluebells International School and Lilawati Vidya Mandir.

The Court restrained excessive government interference, holding that regulation must stay within the scope permitted by law.

[Rumana through father Mr Hemant & Ors v Bluebells International School Kailash & Anr]

The Karnataka government has approved one day of paid menstrual leave per month for all working women in both government and private sectors.

The Menstrual Leave Policy 2025 will allow women to take up to 12 paid leaves annually as menstrual leave.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced the decision after the State Cabinet gave its approval, making Karnataka one of the few states to formally recognise menstrual leave. The leave can be availed in addition to the existing annual and casual leaves.

The policy will apply to women working in government offices, garment factories, multinational companies, IT firms, and private sector organisations across the State. The Labour Department has been tasked with issuing a notification and ensuring implementation across sectors.

Lawyers from various bar associations in Cuttack, including the Odisha High Court Bar Association, held a pen-down protest march condemning the brutal murder of Advocate Pitabash Panda.

The Deceased was shot dead by two unidentified assailants near his residence on October 6.

A resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association called for an extraordinary general meeting of all Cuttack bar associations, chaired by the OHCBA President.

The resolution strongly denounced the attack and expressed condolences on Panda’s untimely death.

Former Union Law Minister and senior Supreme Court advocate Ashwani Kumar will attend the Panthéonisation ceremony of French jurist Robert Badinter in Paris on October 9.

He thanked French President Emmanuel Macron for the invitation.

Panthéonisation is a French national honour that commemorates eminent individuals at the Panthéon, where figures like Voltaire, Victor Hugo, and Marie Curie are interred.

Kumar described Badinter as a distinguished humanist and a crusader against the death penalty, recalling his personal association with him and praising his lifelong dedication to human rights and public causes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State Bar Council cannot charge a fee for transferring the enrollment of an advocate to Madhya Pradesh from another state.

The petitioner had challenged a demand of ₹15,000 made by the Bar Council for the transfer. Earlier, the Court had passed an interim order directing the Bar Council to register the advocate without any fee.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval, noting that the Advocates Act contains no provision permitting such a charge. The Court reiterated that enrollment transfers must be completed free of cost.

[Rohit Pathak v The Bar Council of India and Others]

A 71-year-old advocate attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in protest of his recent remarks in a case concerning the reconstruction of Lord Vishnu’s idol at a temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

The man shouted, “India will not tolerate disrespect of Sanatana Dharma” before being removed from the courtroom. CJI Gavai remained visibly unfazed by the incident.

The remarks in question were made while hearing a PIL seeking directions for the reconstruction and reinstallation of a dilapidated idol of Lord Vishnu within the Khajuraho Temple premises.