The Orissa High Court has directed the Railways to pay ₹9.23 lakh compensation to the family of a passenger who died from injuries sustained while travelling in 2006.

The court strongly criticised the Railways for its apathetic response, which forced the bereaved family to struggle for years to secure their lawful claim.

The Bench observed that the Railways has a primary duty to show compassion and assist grieving families of passengers who die during travel, rather than driving them into prolonged litigation.

The court held that the family’s right to compensation could not be denied by bureaucratic apathy.

[Satyajit Swain v Union of India]

The Orissa High Court has held that Clause 18 of the Vivad se Vishwas II Scheme is mandatory, binding procuring agencies to settle claims that meet the dual requirements of eligibility and proper documentation.

The Court observed that the scheme was introduced to resolve long-pending disputes and provide relief to contractors, and therefore agencies cannot reject claims arbitrarily.

Emphasizing that unilateral refusals defeat the scheme’s purpose, the Court directed authorities to ensure fair and transparent implementation, safeguarding contractors’ rights and reinforcing the government’s intent behind the dispute resolution mechanism.

The Orissa High Court has upheld eviction orders against unauthorized occupants of Amrutamanohi lands belonging to the Lord Jagannath Temple in Puri.

Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi dismissed petitions from individuals claiming over five decades of possession, affirming that such land is legally vested in the deity and cannot be alienated contrary to law.

The Court emphasised that possession of government-issued identity documents does not confer legal title or authorised possession over temple land.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order as well as the rejection of representation.

[Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.]

The Orissa High Court holds that low vision candidates cannot be considered for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer unless the disability is specifically identified under the PwD notification.

A Division Bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo referred to a 2013 notification, which includes OL, OA, HI, and BL-MNR categories but excludes blindness and low vision.

The case arises from a petition by a candidate with 40% visual impairment who challenged the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) recruitment process.

The court also said that reserved posts may remain vacant if suitable candidates are unavailable.

[Odisha Public Service Commission v Biswajit Panda]

The Orissa High Court held that ordering a DNA test in a partition suit to determine parentage is unwarranted and violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court noted that the wife of the deceased shareholder admitted the third defendant as her son, and the petitioner never disputed the validity of the marriage.

The Court emphasised Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which presumes the legitimacy of a child born during wedlock, and stated that recognition in society, not just biology, is crucial in partition suits.

The court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the DNA test application.

[Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan]

Odisha State Bar Council has ordered lawyers engaged in business, private, or government jobs and not practising in courts to surrender their licences within a month, citing violations of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Advocates may act as sleeping partners in businesses compatible with professional dignity, but must avoid active business roles or salaried employment while practising law.

The Council warns of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against non-compliant lawyers, directing all district bar associations to ensure enforcement.

This aims to uphold full-time commitment and integrity in the legal profession.

The Orissa High Court held that a lessee is the true owner of a structure constructed on leased land and the lessor cannot claim ownership over it. The case concerned a mobile tower built under a 2014 lease deed. 

The Court observed that the doctrine of dual ownership applies, where the lessor remains the owner of the land while the lessee owns structures raised with permission.

The Court noted that the petitioner-lessor had no locus to challenge demolition orders since the aggrieved party was the lessee.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

[Nirmala Sahu v Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) & Ors.]

The Orissa High Court has taken strong note of widespread misuse and improper depiction of India’s State Emblem often missing key elements like the four lions or the motto Satyameva Jayate, and emphasised that both citizens and officials lack awareness of legal norms.

A Bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by 'Alone Trust', represented through its managing trustee, Danda Santosh Kumar.

To tackle this, the court appointed Senior Advocates Manoj Kumar Mishra and Subir Palit as amici curiae to aid in enforcement and public education under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

A fresh hearing is set for September 2, 2025

The Orissa High Court has affirmed a 1998 trial court verdict convicting nine men for murdering two persons in Kendrapara in 1996 over a ₹1,000 loan dispute.

Six surviving convicts, on bail since 2010, have been ordered to surrender within 15 days to serve their life term, failing which police will arrest them. 

The Court dismissed defence contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of independent witnesses, and alleged investigation lapses. The court held that the prosecution’s ocular evidence was trustworthy and corroborated by medical reports.

The Bench further ruled that the killings were carried out in prosecution of the unlawful assembly’s common object, attracting liability under relevant provisions of the IPC.

[Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v State of Odisha]

The Orissa High Court granted bail to two accused, holding that failure to produce them before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the BNSS.

Justice Gourishankar Satapathy found discrepancies in arrest memos indicating illegal detention.

The Court stressed that personal liberty is fundamental and cannot be curtailed without due process, citing Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma.

The Court held that such an omission will benefit the accused, warranting immediate release on bail. 

The duo faced BNS charges, including organised crime and causing hurt by poison during robbery.

[Jati @ Susanta Rout & Anr. v State of Odisha]

Following the tragic self-immolation of a student, the Orissa High Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to peaceful protest.

The incident involved a student of Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, who set herself on fire on July 12, 2025, allegedly after repeated harassment by her HOD and dissatisfaction with the Internal Complaints Committee's findings.

The Court held that public authorities must allow citizens to express dissent, provided it doesn't threaten law and order. However, it also stressed that protests must remain within the bounds of legality.

The State was directed to take appropriate legal action if any protests turn unlawful or disruptive.

(Shivsankar Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.)

The Orissa High Court dismissed a husband’s habeas corpus plea seeking custody of his wife and child, who left his home due to marital disputes. 

The Division Bench observed that the wife acted of her own volition and emphasised her fundamental right to personal autonomy.

The court ruled that the husband can neither treat his wife as a “commodity” nor misuse the court’s power to compel her.

The court imposed a Rs 25,000 cost on the husband for filing a frivolous petition. (VKB v. State of Odisha & Ors.)

The Orissa High Court has quashed the compulsory retirement of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, a judge who retired in 2022 amid a Bar boycott. 

The Court noted that even judges with clean records face undue pressure from lawyers and social media, making judicial work sensitive.

The Court rejected the State’s claim that a Bar boycott justified his removal, citing the District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2023) case, which declared such boycotts illegal.

While setting aside the retirement order, the Court did not reinstate Sahoo but remanded the matter to the Review Committee for fresh consideration

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of High Courts to suo motu designate advocates as Senior Advocates.

The court overturned a 2021 Orissa High Court decision that had invalidated Rule 6(9) of the Orissa High Court’s 2019 Rules, which allowed for such designations without formal applications. 

Citing the 2025 Jitender Kalla judgment, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that full courts may confer senior status in exceptional cases, provided the procedure remains fair, transparent, and merit-based.

The designation of five senior advocates by the Orissa High Court in 2019 was upheld.