The Supreme Court questioned how sexual assault charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could be sustained in a 15-year live-in relationship involving a child.

The bench was hearing a plea against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed an FIR against the petitioner’s former partner.

Justice Nagarathna observed that walking out of a consensual relationship without a legal marriage bond does not automatically constitute a criminal offense.

While the petitioner alleged exploitation based on a false promise of marriage, the Court suggested mediation to secure maintenance for the child instead of pursuing criminal prosecution.

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the recommendations and reports of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act are mandatory in nature and not merely advisory.

The Court observed that once the ICC finds an employee guilty of sexual harassment, the employer or district officer must treat it as misconduct and proceed under the applicable service rules.

Justice Manish Mathur emphasised that the objective of the POSH Act is to ensure a safe and harmonious workplace, and therefore ICC proceedings must remain fair, transparent and free from external pressure.

The Court also quashed the suspension orders passed against ICC members, noting absence of proper reasoning and application of mind.

[Km. Sunita Devi v. State Of U.P.]

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against the man accused of operating the “Bangalore Metro Chicks” Instagram page, which allegedly uploaded secretly recorded videos and images of women commuters without their consent.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna strongly criticised the conduct, observing that women were not being left safe “anywhere.”

The petitioner argued that the content was comparable to CCTV footage and also raised procedural objections regarding the investigation. However, the Court rejected these submissions and held that technicalities could not override the seriousness of such acts.

An FIR had been registered against the accused for offences including voyeurism and violations under the Information Technology Act.

The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on criminal proceedings against the son of a BJP leader accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, subject to payment of ₹75,000 per month to the victim and their child.

The Court noted that DNA tests confirmed the accused as the biological father and observed that the mother and child could not be left without support during the pendency of the case.

Calling it a “unique problem” requiring a “unique order,” the Court held that while the accused’s plea for stay could be considered, interim relief must be balanced with the welfare needs of the victim and child.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) cannot shield individuals who instigate false sexual harassment complaints by labeling them "unknown sources."

The Court held that once an ICC relies on a complainant’s retraction, it must include the name of any person identified as the instigator.

In this case, a clerk retracted her allegations, naming her principal as the person who coerced her into filing the complaint to defame a colleague. The Court modified the ICC’s report to specifically name the principal, noting that anonymizing him was a jurisdictional error.

While POSH Act penalties apply to complainants, the accused remains free to pursue separate legal action against the instigator.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) informed the Supreme Court that there is no restriction on women entering mosques to offer namaz.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, clarified that while congregational prayer is mandatory for men, it is optional for women. He noted that the Prophet himself instructed not to stop women from visiting mosques.

However, Shamshad argued that the "Essential Religious Practice" (ERP) test has been wrongly applied to Islam by Indian courts, often relying on inaccurate translations.

He highlighted contradictions in previous judgments, such as the ruling that a mosque is not essential to Islam.

A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for social media posts targeting Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande and other women employees.

Court observed that the tweets prima facie constitute "sexually coloured remarks" under Section 75(3) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The court emphasized that a police investigation is necessary to verify the "X" account and recover the electronic devices used.

This criminal order follows a separate ₹2 crore civil defamation suit in the Delhi High Court, where Mitra had previously been rapped for his derogatory language.

[Manisha Pande & Ors. v. Abhijit Iyer Mitra]

The Supreme Court held that no court can compel a woman, especially a minor, to continue with an unwanted pregnancy merely because the child could later be given up for adoption.

Allowing a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her over seven-month pregnancy, the Court emphasized that the pregnant woman’s choice and reproductive autonomy must remain paramount.

It observed that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term would inflict grave mental, emotional, and physical trauma and violate her rights under Article 21.

The Court further noted that reproductive decisions are integral to bodily autonomy, dignity, privacy, and personal liberty under the Constitution.

The Bombay High Court observed that denial of Child Care Leave (CCL) defeats not only the rights of a working mother but also the child’s right to maternal care, comfort, and support. 

Emphasising the welfare-oriented object behind the CCL policy, the Court held that such provisions are intended to protect motherhood and ensure that women are not disadvantaged in employment due to caregiving responsibilities.

It noted that authorities cannot reject requests for Child Care Leave in a mechanical or arbitrary manner without adhering to the governing policy framework.

Stressing the importance of maternal presence during crucial stages of a child’s life, the Court directed proper reconsideration of the leave request.

[Shri Valencio D’Souza v. The Director]

During the eighth day of the Sabarimala reference hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna observed that a Hindu is a Hindu and possesses the right to visit any temple, emphasizing that religious institutions cannot exclude individuals based on denominational lines.

The nine-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, discussed the scope of religious freedom and the state's power to enact social reforms.

Justice Nagarathna noted that rigid barriers between communities could weaken religious denominations themselves.

She further clarified that while Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations, these rights remain subject to public order, morality, and health as mandated by the Constitution.

During the Sabarimala reference hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna remarked that the Court cannot accept information from "WhatsApp University."

The comment arose after Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul cited a newspaper article by Dr. Shashi Tharoor advocating for judicial restraint in religious matters.

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that while the Court respects eminent thinkers, such articles represent personal opinions rather than binding legal authority.

The bench further discussed the interplay between religious denomination rights under Article 26 and state-led social reforms under Article 25, with Justice Nagarathna emphasizing that religious rights remain subject to public order, morality, and health.

The Supreme Court issued a stern warning to bar associations nationwide to implement 30% reservation for women in their governing bodies or face judicial suspension and fresh elections.

The Bench emphasized that non-compliance will not be tolerated. The Court directed Registrars General of all High Courts to identify non-compliant or reluctant bodies.

Modifying the fallback mechanism, stating that if enough women do not contest, nominations to meet the quota will be made by High Court portfolio judges in consultation with stakeholders.

The move aims to ensure uniform representation of women lawyers at all levels, including district and taluka bar bodies.

[Deeksha K Amrutesh v. State of Karnataka]

The Gujarat High Court upheld an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report that found sexual harassment allegations by a former employee to be false and baseless.

The Court cautioned against the risk of “reverse bias” in POSH proceedings, observing that excessive protection to complainants could unfairly prejudice the accused.

It noted that misuse of the law may end up creating more “glass ceilings” for genuinely deserving employees instead of removing them.

Emphasising adherence to due process, the Court found no bias or illegality in the ICC’s findings and refused to interfere, reiterating that judicial review is limited unless clear perversity or mala fide is established.

A Delhi court has directed a monitored investigation into sexual harassment allegations against senior officials of Hero Future Energies, including its CEO.

The Court took note of lapses in the investigation, particularly the failure to examine key accused persons and witnesses despite an FIR being registered.

It ordered that the probe be supervised by a senior police officer (ACP level) and specifically directed interrogation of the CEO.

The case arises from allegations by a woman employee, who also claimed deficiencies in the company’s internal inquiry process. The matter is now listed for further review of investigation progress.