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. 

A PIL has been filed in the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the ‘Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand, 2024,’ particularly provisions on marriage, divorce, and live-in relationships, claiming they violate fundamental rights. 

The plea argues that the Code imposes Hindu marriage prohibitions on Muslims and Parsis, disregarding their customs. 

It also alleges discrimination against LGBTQ individuals by restricting live-in relationships to biological males and females. 

Concerns over privacy violations, arbitrary registration requirements, and excessive powers granted to the Registrar have also been raised. 

The petition contends these provisions violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and seeks judicial review.

The Uttarakhand High Court, led by Chief Justice G. Narendra, ruled that appointing arbitrators with conflicts of interest is unsustainable.

This case arose from a contractual dispute over the Jummagad Small Hydro Project, where Clause 28.0 named the Principal Secretary or their nominee as sole arbitrator.

The applicants contested this clause, citing the Perkins Eastman Architects judgment, which prohibits unilateral appointments by interested parties.

The court upheld the principle of impartiality, declaring such arbitration clauses invalid.

By appointing an independent arbitrator, the court reinforced fairness and neutrality in arbitration, setting a significant precedent for unbiased dispute resolution in India.