The Uttarakhand High Court directed the reinstatement of a judicial officer who was dismissed in 2020 over allegations of employing and physically and mentally abusing a 17-year-old domestic help, holding that the disciplinary action rested on the absence of evidence and serious procedural irregularities.

The case arose from departmental proceedings against Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deepali Sharma, where the Court found the inquiry process to be excessive, unfair, and lacking basic safeguards, including lapses in medical examination and non-supply of relied-upon documents.

The Court ordered continuity of service with all consequential benefits, while restricting payment of salary arrears to 50%.

[Deepali Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.]

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the police to promptly assess and act on alleged death threats to a Haridwar woman from her husband and in-laws.

The order came during a petition alleging repeated threats and harassment, which the Court said warranted a thorough investigation given the potential risk to the woman’s safety.

The Court emphasised the duty of law enforcement to protect life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and directed that the threats be evaluated in a time-bound manner, with appropriate protective measures put in place.

The matter was listed for further hearing after the assessment report is submitted on record.

The Central government notified the appointment of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. 

He will assume charge after the superannuation of the present Chief Justice on January 9, 2026.

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation on December 18, 2025, and the President approved the proposal, as announced by the Union law minister.

Justice Gupta was the second senior-most judge at the Allahabad High Court. He was elevated as an additional judge in 2013 and became permanent in 2015.

The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to quash an FIR against Madan Mohan Joshi, accused of instigating a mob that attacked a driver transporting buffalo meat, under Sections 109 & 190 BNSS, 2023. 

The Division Bench found prima facie evidence of unlawful assembly and violence, noting that Joshi went live on Facebook and warned of revolution across India.

While Joshi claimed he acted as a good Samaritan to placate the mob, the court held that religious sentiments cannot justify mob violence.

A warrant remains issued against him, and criminal proceedings will continue.

[Madan Mohan Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.]

The Uttarakhand High Court ordered the immediate release of a man who was falsely implicated in a POCSO case by his father-in-law following a marital dispute.

A Division Bench found the case to be one of “no evidence,” observing that the wife’s testimony and medical reports disproved the allegations, which were fabricated to harass the accused.

The Court highlighted contradictions in the trial record and the absence of forensic linkage to the accused, and allowed release on a personal bond of ₹10,000. The Bench is also hearing a related PIL seeking safeguards against the arrest of teenagers in consensual relationships.

[Rampal v State of Uttarakhand]

The Uttarakhand Cabinet has cleared the Minority Education Bill, 2025, extending minority institution benefits to Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian, and Parsi communities. At present, such recognition applies only to Muslim institutions.

The law, once enacted, will repeal the Uttarakhand Madrasa Education Board Act, 2016 and the Non-Government Arabic and Persian Madrasa Recognition Rules, 2019, effective from July 1, 2026.

The Bill also establishes an authority to grant recognition, monitor compliance with education standards, and withdraw approval in case of violations.

Former CM Harish Rawat criticised the move as “narrow-minded,” while Madrasa Board President Mufti Shamoon Qazmi welcomed it, saying quality education will improve.

The Uttarakhand High Court reiterated that elections are the lifeline of democracy and must be conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner because each vote holds value.

Justice Ravindra Maithani made this observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Pushpa Negi, who sought safeguards to ensure fairness in the upcoming election of the Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Nainital.

Negi had earlier submitted a representation to the State Election Commission, raising concerns about transparency.

The State and the Election Commission assured the Court that the elections would be conducted fairly. Recording this assurance, the Court held that no further directions were necessary and disposed of the petition.

The Uttarakhand High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, overrides the State amendment to Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which restricts anticipatory bail in serious offences under laws like POCSO, NDPS and UAPA.

Justice Alok Kumar Verma noted that since BNSS repeals the CrPC and the State hasn’t reenacted such restrictions, the matter needs clarity.

Citing conflicting rulings, including a contrary view by a coordinate Bench, the Court sought an authoritative decision. 

The reference aligns with similar reasoning by the Allahabad High Court.

[Harish Kumar Prajapati v Central Bureau of Investigation]

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently put a hold on the conviction of a vaccine scientist accused of contributing to his wife's suicide, emphasising that national interests could be compromised if he is not permitted to continue his research work 

The trial court had acquitted him of dowry death charges but held him guilty of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

The Court, relying on Supreme Court judgments including Rama Narang v Ramesh Narang and Navjot Singh Sidhu v State of Punjab, noted that in exceptional cases, an appellate court may suspend a conviction if its consequences cause irreparable harm.

The Court suspended both the conviction and sentence while his appeal remains pending. 

[Akash Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand]

The Uttarakhand High Court pulled up an advocate for posting comments and videos on Facebook regarding the accused in the 2025 Nainital child sexual assault case while the trial is pending.

The Court observed that such remarks on the accused's potency test and medical report could prejudice the case. It questioned the advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, and asked him to read the posts in open court.

The advocate tendered an unconditional apology and assured the Court he would refrain from making such posts in the future. The court recorded his undertaking and refrained from referring the matter to the Bar Council.

The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed a State Election Commission clarification that allowed candidates registered in multiple electoral rolls to contest local body elections.

A Division Bench held that the move was prima facie contrary to Sections 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, which prohibit multiple registrations.

The order came in a plea by Shakti Singh, who alleged failure to verify nominations had compromised electoral integrity.

The Court noted the EC’s clarification directly conflicted with the statutory bar. The matter will be heard next on August 11.

The Uttarakhand High Court overturned the conviction of a visually impaired music teacher sentenced to 20 years for raping blind student, citing denial of fair trial.

The Court found that the accused was not provided case documents in Braille, violating his rights under Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Since he couldn’t read the Devanagari script, he was unable to assist his lawyer or defend himself properly.

Based on this serious lapse, the Court ordered a retrial in compliance with the accused's legal rights and proper communication needs.

The Uttarakhand High Court has issued a procedure for listing cases where judges have recused themselves.

An office memorandum, effective from March 8, states that such cases will be assigned to the next senior-most Bench.

If that Bench also recuses, the case will move to the next in seniority, continuing in order. If all judges recuse in sequence, the listing will restart from the senior-most judge.

The notification follows controversies over repeated recusals, notably in cases involving IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi.

The memorandum aims to ensure smooth judicial administration and timely case hearings in the High Court.

The Uttarakhand High Court said the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) aims to recognize more live-in relationships and protect women and children in such relationships.

This came up during a hearing on two other Public Interest Litigation challenging the rule that requires live-in relationships to be registered within 30 days of cohabitation.

The petitioners argued that this rule invades privacy, exposes couples to social judgment, and may lead to harassment.

However, the Solicitor General defended it, saying the law ensures women’s rights and gives legal recognition to live-in relationships. 

Uttarakhand became the first state to enact such a law.