A Delhi court has directed Hindustan Times and journalist Neelesh Misra to pay ₹40 lakh in damages to a businessman for publishing a defamatory article and publish an apology within 60 days. 

The article allegedly linked the businessman to serious criminal allegations, i.e, severe financial irregularities without sufficient evidence, causing reputational harm.

The court found that the publication failed to verify the facts and exercised irresponsible journalism.

The court emphasized that freedom of the press does not permit character assassination and underscored the need for media accountability.  (Arun Kumar Gupta v. HT Media Limited & Ors)

The Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) has announced the revised results for the CLAT‑PG 2025 exam following the Delhi High Court's directions.

The updated answer key, released on June 11, corrected five answers and withdrew two questions after eight were legally challenged. These changes were made to rectify errors in the original key and uphold fairness.

The revision ensures transparency before the start of the counselling and admission process.

The Kerala High Court ruled that a divorced wife who voluntarily gave up maintenance in a mutual-consent divorce can later claim alimony under Section 37 of the Divorce Act if her circumstances change. 

The bench clarified that statutory rights to maintenance survive mutual divorce, and waiver agreements are void against public policy.

The court further clarified that courts have inherent power to modify permanent alimony orders under changed circumstances, and minor children can also claim maintenance under the Act.

The case has been remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration based on evidence of need and ability to pay. 

The Allahabad High Court quashed a 2015 FIR accusing a brother-in-law of gang rape under Section 376(D) IPC following a compromise between the parties.

The court observed that the dispute arose from intra‑family discord and was not a criminal act impacting society or public morality.

Although the offence under Section 376(D) IPC is grave and non‑compoundable, the complainant, who entered into the compromise consciously and without coercion, confirmed the settlement of the matter.

The Court held that continuing prosecution would abuse the legal process and serve no useful purpose. The petitioners, being closely related, resolved the familial dispute amicably.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet against husband Ghanshyam Soni and his family, filed under Section 498A IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry demands.

The bench found the allegations vague and lacking specifics (no dates, times, or incidents), with no medical or witness evidence. It noted that the petitioner withdrew an earlier complaint, questioning her credibility.

The Court emphasised that Section 498A should not be misused as a weapon to harass family members, citing precedent to prevent omnibus allegations.

Exercising its Constitutional powers, the Court quashed the FIR under Article 142 as continuing the trial would be oppressive and unjust. (Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr)

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts have held that police cannot intervene in landlord-tenant disputes or eviction matters, as these are purely civil issues that fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking police intervention due to the poor condition of his shops, some occupied by tenants, citing safety concerns and a structural engineering report.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing a petition, reiterated that police have no jurisdiction to intervene in landlord-tenant disputes, including those concerning eviction.

The Court highlighted that landlords cannot use police to directly remove tenants; an eviction requires a court order. (Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&K)

The Madras High Court showed strong disappointment with the Tamil Nadu government for delaying a welfare policy for the LGBTQIA+ community. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said that the State seemed to prioritize other matters over the welfare of this community. 

The State had sought multiple adjournments despite a court directive to submit the draft by June 2. The court reminded the government that it had already been given time to consult stakeholders and draft the policy. 

The court has now postponed the case until 21 July 2025 and asked for a speedy process. (S Sushma and Another v. Director General of Police & Ors)

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed a ₹3 lakh penalty on Motilal Oswal Financial Services for breaching stockbroker regulations under SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992. 

SEBI’s inspection found that Motilal Oswal allowed trading terminals to operate from unauthorized locations and permitted unapproved users.

The broker also failed to identify and report fund-based activities between authorized persons and clients, violating regulatory norms. 

SEBI stated, “Such lapses undermine market integrity.” The regulator directed Motilal Oswal to pay the penalty within 45 days and ensure strict compliance with all regulatory provisions.

The Kerala High Court has issued a formal notice to Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in response to an election petition filed by BJP candidate Navya Haridas, challenging her victory in the Wayanad Lok Sabha by-election of November 2024. 

Ms. Haridas alleges "corrupt practices" and claims that Ms. Gandhi's election affidavit contained "suppression or non-disclosure" of immovable properties owned by her.

This violates mandatory disclosure provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Section 123 related to corrupt practices.

The petition has been admitted by the Bench of Justice K Babu, and the matter is listed for further hearing in August 2025. (Navya Haridas v Priyanka Gandhi Vadra)

The Supreme Court of India ruled that mere registration of a property deed does not confer ownership rights.

The Court emphasized that legal ownership is established through valid title and actual possession, not just registration under The Registration Act, 1908.

Citing past precedents, the bench observed that possession and lawful entitlement are essential to claim ownership. This ruling aims to curb fraudulent transactions and urges buyers to exercise due diligence.

It reinforces that ownership must align with Section 17 of the Act, which mandates registration but not automatic transfer of title.

The Kerala High Court has admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking regulation of 'dynamic ticket pricing' by multiplex operators across the state.

Advocate Manu Nair G, the petitioner, argued that cinema chains like PVR, INOX, and Cinepolis exploit consumers with arbitrary and excessive price hikes based on demand, show timing, and film release without oversight from licensing authorities under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958.

The PIL claims this violates Article 14 of the Constitution and contrasts Kerala’s inaction with other states that cap ticket prices.

The court has asked the state government to file a counter‑affidavit & listed the case for further hearing on July 1. (Manu Nair G v. State of Kerala & ors)

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed the Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025, to simplify license fee payments under the Copyright Rules, 2013.

A new Rule 83(A) mandates an exclusive online system for paying license fees for literary works, musical works, and sound recordings communicated to the public. 

No other payment methods will be allowed. This aims to enhance transparency and ease of transactions for copyright holders and users in line with India's digital economy trends. 

Public comments and suggestions are invited by July 5, 2025, and may be sent by post or email to ipr7-dipp@gov.in.

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, declared that courts need not order mental health evaluations of petitioners (typically wives or children) seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless there is a credible basis for doing so. 

Justice A. Badharudheen overturned a Thalassery Family Court's direction for mental health testing of a woman seeking maintenance, stating such assessments are irrelevant unless mental fitness directly affects the claim.

The Court emphasised that the focus should remain on the petitioner’s financial need and the respondent’s ability to pay, avoiding unwarranted delays and procedural complications. (Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran)

Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar may form an inquiry panel to investigate Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for alleged hate speech.

At a VHP event on December 8, 2024, Justice Yadav reportedly said “the country will run according to the majority” and made remarks against Muslim personal laws.

Opposition MPs submitted an impeachment motion with 55 signatures. The Secretariat is now verifying them, as at least 50 are needed in Rajya Sabha under the Judges Inquiry Act.

The Supreme Court stopped its own inquiry, saying only Parliament can handle this issue. If enough signatures are valid, a formal investigation could start before the Monsoon Session starting in July 21.