The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Bar Council to provisionally register advocate Rohit Pathak without charging any fee, pending final orders.

Pathak sought transfer of his enrolment from the Bar Council of Delhi to Madhya Pradesh, but the State Bar Council demanded an exorbitant ₹15,000 as a fee, which Pathak challenged as illegal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The High Court noted that once the Bar Council of India and the Delhi Bar Council approved the transfer, the State Bar Council’s role was limited to registration without additional fees. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 7, 2025.

(Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband’s plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and children.

Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the husband was attempting to shirk his responsibilities while enjoying an affluent lifestyle, including expensive bikes.

The dispute arose after the birth of their younger child, who has severe health challenges requiring full-time care. The family court had ordered ₹15,000 monthly for the wife and ₹7,000 and ₹12,000 for the minor children.

The High Court upheld this order and imposed ₹10,000 costs on the husband.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has called a trial court's dismissal of a litigant's applications a "classic instance of abdication of judicial duty." This came after the trial court dismissed the applications, citing the disarray of the court's file.

Justice Alok Awasthi stated that it is the duty of the court staff and presiding officer to maintain records. A litigant cannot be penalised for a disorganised file or for a delayed appearance.

The High Court quashed the order and directed the trial court to decide all pending applications on their merits within 60 days, emphasising that a non-speaking order is illegal.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has suspended the life sentence of murder convict Mahesh Sharma on the condition that he plant and nurture 10 saplings, including fruit-bearing or neem/peepal trees.

Under the order, Sharma must furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount.

He is also required to submit geo-tagged photographs through the NISARG App of the planted trees to the trial court within 30 days of release, and update every three months.

The Court cautioned that Sharma’s bail would be cancelled if he caused “embarrassment and harassment” to the complainant. The case has been disposed of in relation to the IA under these terms.

[Subhas Sharma and Others v State of M.P.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered strict penal action against a woman who falsely accused a Senior Advocate of breaking into her house at night and raping her two-year-old daughter.

Justice Vishal Mishra quashed the FIR after finding that call records and CCTV footage disproved the allegations.

The Court noted that the woman had repeatedly filed false complaints to blackmail people or settle personal scores.

Directing the SP, Rewa to act immediately, the Bench invoked Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act and Sections 240 and 248 of BNS, 2023 for making false complaints.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed an advocate, who filed a PIL against the song “Bhai Vakeel Hai” from the upcoming film Jolly LLB 3, to implead the movie’s director and producer as parties to the case.

The Court deemed both the individuals to be necessary parties to the suit, without whom the petition could not be disposed of. 

The petitioner contended that the song trivialises the legal community and contains objectionable and derogatory lyrics.

The Court will hear the matter further after the impleadment.

[Pranjal Tiwari v State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a suo motu matter, has directed that medical boards formed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act must issue clear, cogent, and comprehensive reports.

The bench emphasized that opinions must explicitly state whether the advice is given in good faith, whether continuation of the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or physical/mental health, or if there is a substantial risk of severe fetal abnormalities.

The Registrar General has been directed to circulate this order to all Principal District & Sessions Judges and the State Medical Board for strict compliance.

[Prosecutrix X v State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh compensation to a convict who spent an additional 4.7 months in prison despite completing his seven-year sentence in a rape case.

The Court expressed its displeasure with the serious lapse of procedure and demanded an answer from the concerned authorities in this regard.

The Court also directed the State Legal Services Authority to carry out a survey across prisons in Madhya Pradesh to ensure no other inmate remains incarcerated beyond the term of their sentence.

[Sohan Singh @Bablu v State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a divorce to a man whose wife set herself on fire in 2005 and later accused his relatives of the act. The couple married in 2003, had a child, and had been living separately since 2005.

The husband filed for divorce in 2006, alleging mental cruelty. A Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla hears the appeal after a trial court had earlier refused to grant a divorce.

The High Court rejects the wife’s allegations, noting she failed to produce neighbours as witnesses or evidence to support her claims.

The court concluded that the act amounted to mental cruelty and dissolved the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court is hearing a PIL against the teaser and song “Bhai Wakeel Hai” from Jolly LLB 3, alleging that it demeans the legal profession.

The petitioner, an advocate, argued that actors dancing in advocates’ attire with neck bands ridicules the dignity of lawyers.

The plea describes the lyrics as “objectionable, obscene and derogatory,” contending they harm public perception of the profession and offend youth sensibilities.

It relies on Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Article 19(2) restrictions on free speech. The petition seeks a ban on the song’s release and will be heard on September 9.

[Pranjal Tiwari v State of MP]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice to the Union Government on a petition by Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.

The firm, a fantasy-sports operator, argues that the law’s blanket ban on real-money games, including fantasy sports, violates Article 19(1)(g) by disregarding legal distinctions between games of skill and chance.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed the Centre to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks and permitted rejoinders ahead of the next hearing on October 28, 2025.

[Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment Private Ltd v UOI]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought responses from the state and central governments on a PIL challenging online advertisements that use celebrity endorsements to promote legal services, arguing such practices violate Bar Council of India rules against soliciting clients.

The petition claims these ads mislead the public and commercialise the legal profession.

The court will examine whether existing regulations adequately address digital advertising ethics and professional conduct for lawyers. The matter is listed next week.

[Prashant Upadhyay v Bar Council of India]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought responses from the state government and temple authorities on a PIL alleging VIP culture at Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar Temple, where special privileges and faster darshan (viewing) access are provided to influential visitors, disrupting equal access for ordinary devotees.

The petition argues that such practices violate the right to equality and religious freedom. The court will examine whether administrative policies unfairly prioritise certain groups, undermining the sanctity of public religious spaces.

The bench observed that neither the protocols published by the management nor any statutory Acts or Rules defined 'who is a VIP'.

[Darpan Awasthi v State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has accepted the unconditional apology of an advocate who used indecent language during a bail hearing but warned him against repeating such conduct.

Justice Pramod Kumar Agarwal observed that any future use of inappropriate language towards the court would invite strict action.

The case concerned a bail plea of four accused allegedly involved in an assault.  A heated exchange between counsels led to a remark against the court.

While accepting the apology, the bench made it clear that advocates must maintain dignity in courtroom proceedings. The matter will be heard again on September 1.