A sitting female judge of the Bombay High Court fell victim to a sophisticated online fraud, losing approximately ₹6.02 lakhs to an unknown fraudster.

According to the FIR lodged at Cuffe Parade Police Station, the judge was attempting to redeem credit card reward points when she dialed a number found on Google.

The fraudster, posing as an HDFC Bank representative, prompted her to install a malicious ".apk" file on an Android device. Once the judge entered her card details, several unauthorized transactions were immediately initiated.

The Mumbai Police have registered a case under Sections 66, 66C, and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that employees selected through the same recruitment process cannot be subjected to different pay fixations or increments based solely on their joining dates.

The Court held that granting an additional annual increment to those who joined before a specific date, while denying it to others in the same batch, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that authorities must adopt a uniform date, to ensure parity within the same cadre.

Further striking down a Finance Department circular used to justify this disparity, directing the State to rationalize and correct the pay anomaly within one month.

[Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.]

The Madras High Court held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied across employees working under different service structures.

The case involved a lineman employed by Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., a state-owned PSU, who sought salary parity with linemen working in government departments.

The Court observed that employees of public sector undertakings and government departments are governed by distinct service rules, recruitment processes, and financial structures. Since their service conditions are fundamentally different, pay parity cannot be claimed.

The Division Bench therefore set aside the earlier order that had directed the State to grant equal pay.

The Orissa High Court ruled that village Panchayats and Sarpanches lack the judicial authority to settle serious crimes like child sexual abuse through brokered marriages.

The Court upheld the 20-year conviction of a man who repeatedly assaulted a minor, noting that a subsequent marriage does not act as a "legal solvent" for initial criminal liability.

The Court condemned the rural practice of village elders convening to stifle criminal complaints, emphasizing that Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates reporting such cases to the police.

Directing District Magistrates to sensitize local representatives that sexual offences are not subject to private settlement.

[Sanat Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha]

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that India’s rapid economic expansion necessitates a robust and credible framework for resolving complex cross-border commercial disputes.

Speaking at the launch of the Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre, asserting that India must position itself as a trusted global jurisdiction for litigation, mediation, and arbitration to inspire confidence among international investors.

He noted that modern supply chains and digital transactions demand structural coherence across all dispute resolution systems. 

Describing the new center as an exercise in institutional imagination, he called for a transformation that prepares India for the next phase of global economic integration.

The Delhi High Court today stayed adverse remarks and directions for a departmental inquiry made by a trial court against the CBI and its investigating officer.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, on the CBI's revision petition challenging their discharge.

The Court also directed the trial court to postpone hearings in the connected PMLA case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the discharge order effectively amounted to an "acquittal without trial" and ignored scientific evidence.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on March 16, 2026.

[Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.]

The Rajasthan High Court held that a son's right to compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because his parents were divorced or because his father's second wife was already employed.

The Bench rejected the State's argument that the son was not "dependent" as he lived with his mother post-divorce.

The Court clarified that divorce does not negate the legal status of a son under the 1996 Rules.

The Court further noted that the second wife's appointment under the widow quota was an independent recruitment and could not divest the son of his specific rights under compassionate grounds.

[State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashish Saxena & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court issued notice to Google and two Sri Lankan news outlets on a plea filed by Justice AHM Dilip Nawaz, a judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory online articles. 

The petition claims the reports falsely linked him to a criminal offence and continue to appear in search results despite the case being dismissed.

He invoked his right to reputation and the “right to be forgotten” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court, hearing the matter before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, directed notices to the respondents and scheduled the case for a preliminary hearing on March 16. 

The Supreme Court directed the employer of a man who refused to pay maintenance to his estranged wife to deduct ₹25,000 monthly from his salary.

The Bench passed the order after noting the husband failed to clear arrears and neglected the upkeep of his wife and minor daughter.

Despite earning ₹50,000 per month, the husband defied previous court directions to deposit travel expenses and maintenance. Consequently, the Court ordered the employer to transfer the deducted amount directly to the wife’s bank account via RTGS.

The Bench emphasized that the husband’s continued refusal left no other option to ensure the family's welfare.

The Karnataka High Court stayed criminal proceedings against Deputy CM DK Shivakumar concerning a 2024 Facebook post allegedly containing morphed and provocative content against BJP leaders.

The Court passed the interim order on a plea to quash the FIR, which was registered following a private complaint.

The post, appearing on the INC Karnataka page, allegedly featured BJP leaders holding placards with altered text during protests related to the 1992 Ayodhya riots case.

The complaint alleged the post aimed to promote enmity and tarnish the image of senior leaders. The Court has now sought a response from the State regarding the matter.

[D.K. Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]

The Madras High Court observed that young men frequently face criminalization under the POCSO Act due to parental opposition to consensual adolescent relationships.

While setting aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years in prison, Justice N Mala noted that such cases often arise when girls are pressured by parents to initiate proceedings.

The Court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution failed to legally prove the victim’s age, relying on photocopies instead of original documents.

Further directing the Tamil Nadu government to conduct awareness campaigns to prevent the misuse of the Act in genuine teenage relationships.

[Mahesh v. State of Tamil Nadu]

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna cautioned law students against comparing their progress to "exaggerated" achievements on platforms like LinkedIn.

Speaking at the 22nd K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court Competition, she emphasized that growth in the legal profession is rarely linear and urged students to focus on sincerity rather than competition.

Justice Nagarathna highlighted that true excellence stems from patience, integrity, and independent thinking, advising a preference for natural intelligence over AI.

She further encouraged young women to challenge systemic barriers and urged all aspiring lawyers to treat pro-bono cases with the same diligence as high-profile matters to ensure meaningful legal impact.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati.

The Bench overturned the 2019 CBI court order that had sentenced him to life imprisonment as the main conspirator.

However, the High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of the three other accused. Chhatrapati was killed after his newspaper published reports regarding the sexual exploitation of women at the Dera headquarters.

While the Dera chief has been acquitted in this matter, he continues to serve a 20-year sentence for separate rape convictions.

[Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. CBI]

The Kerala High Court is hearing a petition challenging the use of citizens’ personal data by the Chief Minister’s Office for sending bulk messages about government schemes.

Petitioners argued that the State has no free hand to repurpose data collected for government services, contending that such use violates the right to privacy.

The State defended the initiative as “transformative communication” aimed at informing people about welfare programmes.

However, the Court raised concerns over data protection and whether explicit consent had been obtained, observing that data held by the State cannot be used for political or unauthorised messaging.