Punjab & Haryana High Court Updates

Punjab Haryana High Court

Denying Maternity Leave To Contractual Employee Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that refusing maternity leave to a contractual employee breaches Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Justice Aman Chaudhary said the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 protects all working women, and discrimination based on employment type: regular or contractual, is unconstitutional.

The case involved a clinic assistant whose request to rejoin after childbirth was rejected. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that maternity benefits extend to contractual and fixed-term workers.

The rejection letter was quashed, ensuring her right to equal protection and full maternity benefits.

[Harpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others]

Read Order / 2 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

SGPC Moves Punjab and Haryana High Court for Uniform Rules on Kirpan in Exam Halls

The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice to the Union, Punjab, and Haryana governments on a PIL filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) seeking uniform guidelines for allowing Sikh students to carry kirpans in exam halls.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the matter, with the Chief Justice questioning the need for a “knife” in such settings and weighing religious sentiments against State security.

Senior Advocate PS Hundal said kirpans are integral to the Sikh faith and cited a Rajasthan incident.

The Court noted the absence of any law specifically banning kirpans and directed the respondents to file their replies.

Read Details / 2 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana HC Slaps ₹50K Cost on Litigant for Forum Shopping, Misusing Contempt Law

The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a ₹50,000 cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous contempt plea and engaging in forum shopping.

The petitioner claimed unlawful water disconnection, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India. The Court found the issue purely civil and outside its contempt jurisdiction, noting the petitioner ignored repeated directions to seek civil remedies.

Citing Dalip Singh v. State of UP, the Court condemned the misuse of judicial processes.

The cost will be donated to the High Court Bar Association for renovating the Women’s Bar Room, serving as a deterrent against similar conduct.

[Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha IAS and others]

Judgement copy / 2 days ago

PrakshaalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Clarity on HC Expansion Plan, Directs UT to File Heritage, Environmental Reports

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to clarify environmental, heritage, and infrastructural concerns regarding the expansion and potential relocation of the High Court.

Objections to the IT Park and Sarangpur sites, traffic congestion, and construction feasibility must be clarified. The Court also ordered daily traffic management with DSP-level officers and directed improvements to kutcha parking.

Keys to the renovated Sector 17 building were handed over for administrative use. A joint meeting chaired by Satya Pal Jain is scheduled for August 7. The next hearing is on August 13.

Read Details / 3 days ago

PrakshaalBookmark

No Power To Transfer Case From One High Court To Another: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled it has no power to transfer cases from one High Court to another.

The petitioner, an advocate, sought the transfer of three cases pending before a High Court judge to a different bench or High Court.

The Court dismissed the plea, stating that such jurisdiction lies only with the Supreme Court and advised the petitioner to approach the correct forum.

The Court also clarified that challenges to a Single Judge’s order should be made through a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) or directly before the Supreme Court.

[Ravneet Kaur v Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and Another]

Read Details / 3 days ago

VedikaBookmark

P&H HC issues notice on PIL challenging law allowing pregnancy termination on presumed mental health risk

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Union government on a PIL challenging Section 3(2), Explanation 1 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

The plea argues that the law wrongly allows pregnancy termination based on a presumption of grave injury to a woman’s mental health by a doctor not qualified in psychology or psychiatry.

The petitioner contends that anguish cannot be automatically assumed, and the provision is being misused.

The Union government cited a Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights, but the petitioner clarified that the specific provision was not addressed in that case. The matter is posted for hearing on September 16.

[Deepak Kumar vs UOI & Another]

Read Details / 3 days ago

PrakshaalBookmark

Ongoing Probe Against Co-Accused is No Ground to Deny Bail Under CGST Act: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that bail cannot be denied under Section 132 of the CGST Act merely because a co-accused is still under investigation.

In a ₹107 crore tax fraud case involving fake invoices, the Court granted bail, holding that each accused must be considered independently.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over nine months, the evidence was largely documentary, and no allegation of non-cooperation existed.

The Court stressed that prolonged detention cannot override fundamental rights.

[Manish Kumar v Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence]

Read Order / 4 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash POCSO FIR Despite Marriage With Victim

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a plea to quash a 2013 POCSO case against a man who later married the 13-year-old victim and had four children with her.

The Court ruled that compromises in such cases are illegal and against public policy, stressing that minors cannot legally consent due to their psychological immaturity.

Despite the accused claiming a misunderstanding, he was declared a proclaimed offender in 2014 and re-arrested in 2023. Another FIR from 2014 involving the same victim remains under investigation.

The Court emphasised the legislative intent of the POCSO Act and refused to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

Read Details / 9 days ago

PrakshaalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Authorities to Inform Mentally Ill Accused of Free Legal Aid Rights

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed that all magistrates, police, and custodial officers must inform individuals with mental illness of their right to free legal aid under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry highlighted gaps in awareness and training among judicial officers. The Court instructed the Chandigarh Judicial Academy, State Legal Services Authorities, and the High Court Legal Services Committee to initiate training programmes.

It also impleaded the Union Health Ministry over the absence of a Mental Health Review Board in Chandigarh. Hearing resumes on September 4.

[Pushpanjali Trust v. State of Punjab and others]

10 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks State’s Reply on PIL for CBI Probe into Private Schools’ EWS Seat Exemption

The Court has directed the Punjab government to respond by September 22 to a PIL filed by KS Raju Legal Trust, demanding a CBI probe into alleged state collusion that exempted private schools from reserving seats for weaker sections in violation of the RTE Act, 2009.

The PIL targets Rule 7(4) of the Punjab RTE Rules, 2011, claiming it imposed an unconstitutional barrier on EWS children, enabling private schools to bypass the 25% reservation mandate for 15 years.

Earlier, on February 19, 2025, the Court ordered all private unaided schools to reserve 25% of Class 1 seats for EWS students and mandated state enforcement from the 2025–26 academic session.

Read Details / 14 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

Soldiers Killed in Friendly Fire Entitled to Same Pension as Battle Casualties: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that soldiers killed by fellow personnel during military operations are entitled to the same pension benefits as those killed in action.

The case involved a soldier who died from a firearm injury during Operation Rakshak in 1991. Despite the 25-year delay in filing the claim, the Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s 2022 order granting the soldier’s mother a liberalised family pension.

Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Deepak Manchanda said denying such benefits would be unjust, as the soldier’s death qualified as a battle casualty. [Union of India v. Rukmani Devi]

Read Order / 15 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Requirement of Handling 50 Cases Annually for District Judge Appointment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the rule requiring advocates to have handled a minimum of 50 cases per year for the past three years to qualify for appointment as district judges.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, emphasized that this requirement had already been validated by an earlier judgment, which remains unchallenged.

The petitioner argued that the rule is arbitrary and particularly unfair to legal aid counsels. However, the Court asserted that a clear cutoff is both necessary and permissible under Article 233. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea.

[Kanu Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others]

15 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Punjab and Haryana High Court Flags "Judicial Indiscipline" Over Contradictory Bail Orders

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up Additional Sessions Judge Jyoti Lamba of Faridabad for passing two contradictory bail orders in a forgery case on the same day.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that the judge first orally granted interim anticipatory bail, but later uploaded a detailed 12-page order granting absolute pre-arrest bail, calling it a case of “judicial indiscipline.”

The Court observed that the accused failed to furnish surety or join the investigation, resulting in the cancellation of bail.

The Registrar General was directed to present the case file to the Administrative Judge for further action.

Order Copy / 16 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

Punjab & Haryana HC: “Real and Substantial Risk” Needed to Deny NDPS Bail; Bail Granted in Heroin Case

Case Name: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab

The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified the pre-requisite for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; courts must look for a real and substantial probability that the accused will re-offend if granted bail, not just a vague or speculative chance.

A man jailed for nearly three years in a commercial heroin case was granted bail after the Court noted no direct recovery from him, weak evidence, and extended trial delays. Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed it was “highly unlikely” for someone to carry 2 kg of narcotics openly in a transparent bag.

The court held that bail conditions like monthly affidavits or regular police appearances can help meet the Act’s strict standards while still ensuring fairness.

Read Order / 17 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Judicial Inquiry Closure Can Be Challenged Only in Rare Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Amit Kumar vs The State of Haryana and others

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that closure of a preliminary inquiry against a judicial officer can only be challenged in exceptional circumstances.

The order came in a plea by Ludhiana-based lawyer Amit Kumar, who had questioned the administrative decision to drop his complaint.

The Court held it cannot function as an appellate body over such closures unless there is proven malice, violation of fundamental rights, or a decision that shocks the public conscience.

The Court stressed judicial independence and said complaints about conduct, not moral issues, don't justify interference unless clearly proven.

The petition to initiate disciplinary action and suspend judicial work was dismissed.

Read Order / 18 days ago

PrakshaalBookmark