The Supreme Court has ruled that fatal accidents occurring during an employee’s commute to work are covered under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

The case involved a night watchman who died in a road accident while travelling to his workplace. The Court observed that there was a direct connection between his journey and the performance of his duties.

While the High Court had earlier denied compensation, the Supreme Court held that such commuting accidents fall within the scope of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” It aligned the interpretation with that under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 

[Daivshala & Ors. V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has reserved its order on whether couples who froze embryos before the Surrogacy Act, 2021, came into force on January 25, 2025, can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the age limit.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan questioned the logic of applying the Act retroactively, pointing out that the law is silent on such cases.

The government opposed the plea, citing medical and welfare concerns.

But the Court stressed that the Act’s object is to prevent commercial surrogacy, not to deny genuine intending parents the chance to have children.

[Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and connected cases]

A woman judicial officer in Madhya Pradesh, Aditi Gajendra Sharma, has resigned after the man she accused of harassment was elevated to the High Court.

In her letter, she expressed deep betrayal, saying the system she served failed her.

Despite raising complaints with top judicial authorities, she received no response. She said the judiciary ignored due process and rewarded the person she had accused with promotion.

The letter reportedly states that the judicial officer leaves the institution with "no medals" but a "bitter truth" that the judiciary not only failed her but failed itself.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear review petitions challenging its May 2 judgment that quashed JSW Steel’s resolution plan for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd (BSPL), declaring it illegal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the request for an open-court hearing and oral submissions. 

The matter is now scheduled for a detailed hearing on July 31 at 3 PM. 

The decision marks a crucial development in the high-stakes corporate insolvency battle.

[Punjab National Bank & Anr v Kalyani Transco & Ors]

A Delhi court has restrained a married woman from stalking and harassing a man who declined her proposal for a physical relationship.

Judge Renu of Rohini Court barred her from coming within 300 metres of the man’s home or contacting him or his family in any way, including through social media or third parties.

The man told the court he met her in 2019 and rejected her advances in 2022, but she continued to harass him online and in person, even threatening suicide.

The court found her actions violated his right to live peacefully.

The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to litigant Peddi Raju and his lawyers for making “scurrilous” allegations against sitting judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court.

A Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said it would not tolerate unfounded attacks on judges. "We can't permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge," the CJI said, rejecting a plea to withdraw the petition.

The allegations were made in a plea to transfer a case in which Telangana CM Revanth Reddy had secured relief. The Court posted the matter for August 11.

The Delhi High Court quashed the Centre’s decision refusing to renew an NGO’s FCRA registration, observing that the refusal was communicated through a one-line email, indicating non-application of mind.

Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal held that such a cryptic rejection violates principles of natural justice, especially since the NGO had complied with FCRA requirements.

The Court emphasised the need for reasoned orders in administrative decisions, particularly when they affect the rights and functioning of civil society organisations.

The Bench quashed the impugned communication and directed the Union of India to consider the request of the NGO for renewal of the FCRA certificate afresh.

[Indian Social Action Forum v. UOI]

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a motor accident victim’s family cannot be denied compensation solely because the driver’s licence had expired at the time of the accident. 

Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha emphasised that compensation should be just and reasonable, and technicalities should not override justice.

The Court held that expired licences don’t negate liability if the driver was otherwise competent and licensed at some point.

The Court ordered the insurer to pay the awarded amount and recover its share from the driver if fault is shared. 

[Shivegowda v Nanjeshgowda & Anr]

The Kerala High Court took serious note of the alarming rise in fatal road accidents across the state, attributing them to poor road conditions, potholes, and reckless driving.

The Bench led by Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked that deaths on the road have become a daily affair, calling it a collective failure of governance and public behaviour.

The Court stressed the urgent need for accountability from both state authorities and citizens, warning that inaction is leading to daily bloodshed.

It directed the state to take strict remedial measures and to submit an action plan by the next hearing.

[C P Ajithkumar v State of Kerala]

The Supreme Court of India, while hearing a PIL regarding the strengthening of Bar Associations, observed that judges attending private parties hosted by lawyers can project a wrong image and undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.

Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta stated that such social interactions may appear inappropriate and called for professional boundaries to be maintained.

The Court emphasised the need to protect the judiciary’s credibility and discussed forming norms to regulate interactions between judges and lawyers. The matter was adjourned to September 18 for further deliberations.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that caste is assigned by birth and does not change on marrying a person from a Scheduled Caste.

Consequently, the accused, a non-SC woman who married an SC man, remains a non-SC individual and can be charged under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act for abusing someone using caste slurs.

The bench set aside the trial court’s discharge order, which had incorrectly applied marital caste identity, and remanded the case for fresh framing of charges.

[State of Himachal Pradesh v Sarojioni]