A mother filed a writ petition seeking termination of her 17-year-old daughter's 22-week pregnancy, allegedly caused by rape. However, the minor girl opposed the abortion, asserting the relationship was consensual and expressing her desire to keep the child. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the minor’s autonomy. Though she was 17 years and 5 months old, the Court found her sufficiently mature to understand the consequences of her decision. It held that reproductive autonomy is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to continue a pregnancy and create life. The Court ruled that when a minor's informed choice conflicts with her guardian’s wishes, the minor’s consent prevails. Forcing termination would constitute a grave violation of her bodily integrity and mental well-being. The Court emphasized that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the pregnant person's consent is paramount, regardless of third-party interference. The petition was dismissed, directing the State to provide full medical support and compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme. The judgment reaffirmed bodily autonomy as a core fundamental right.
A mother filed a writ petition seeking termination of her 17-year-old daughter's 22-week pregnancy, allegedly caused by rape. However, the minor opposed the abortion, stating the relationship was consensual and she wished to keep the child. The Rajasthan High Court held that reproductive autonomy, even for mature minors, is protected under Article 21. It ruled that when a pregnant minor is found capable of understanding the consequences, her decision prevails over her guardian's. The Court dismissed the petition, directed the State to bear medical expenses and provide compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, affirming the primacy of bodily autonomy.
Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman, married Viswanathan Krishna Murthy on January 21, 2019, under Hindu rites. She later filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The core legal issue was whether a transgender woman can seek protection under Section 498-A. The Telangana High Court affirmed that transgender women in heterosexual marriages enjoy the same legal protections as cisgender women under Section 498-A IPC, relying on constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, and key judgments like NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). However, the court quashed the FIR, finding the allegations vague and lacking specific instances of cruelty or dowry demands. It noted the love marriage and cordial relations between the complainant and her in-laws. The judgment underscores both the recognition of transgender rights and the necessity of concrete evidence in criminal proceedings.
In a case between Tata Motors and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), the Calcutta High Court dismissed WBIDC’s application to implead the Presiding Arbitrator in proceedings under Sections 34 and 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. WBIDC alleged bias and fraud, claiming the arbitrator attended Tata Motors events during the arbitration. Tata Motors countered that the bias claim was raised late and did not amount to fraud under Section 36(3). The Court held that impleadment of an arbitrator can only occur after a prima facie case of fraud or corruption is established. It clarified that bias alone doesn’t fall under the ambit of fraud or corruption for unconditional stay. The Court distinguished between the broader review under Section 34 and the limited scope of Section 36(2), emphasizing sequential adjudication: first, fraud must be prima facie established, then impleadment can be considered. Thus, the application was deemed premature and misconceived.
A 31-year-old woman, 25 weeks pregnant due to contraceptive failure during a consensual relationship, approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission for medical termination. She cited emotional and financial abandonment by her estranged partner and lack of familial support. A Medical Board, constituted under the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021, found her physically fit and the fetus anomaly-free but denied medical grounds for termination at that stage. The petitioner’s counsel argued that continuing the pregnancy would cause grave mental anguish. The State suggested allowing the pregnancy to go full term, offering state care for the child. Relying on A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, the Court allowed termination, emphasizing reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right under Article 21. It held that a woman’s consent and mental health are central to MTP decisions. Courts may override medical opinions when fundamental rights are at stake. The ruling reinforced the need for holistic evaluation—considering psychological, social, and financial factors, not just clinical grounds.
In this case, the petitioner’s father had executed an absolute settlement deed in 1997, transferring property to the petitioner without any conditions and with a clause barring cancellation. After his death, the petitioner's mother sought cancellation of the deed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging neglect and lack of love and affection from the petitioner. The Sub-Collector cancelled the deed, which the petitioner challenged in court. The High Court ruled that Section 23(1) applies only when three cumulative conditions are met: (1) the transferor is a senior citizen; (2) the transfer is subject to an express condition for providing basic amenities and physical needs; and (3) the transferee fails to fulfill those obligations. The Court held that an express condition in the deed is mandatory and cannot be implied. "Love and affection" is not a legally enforceable condition. Moreover, only the original transferor can file an application under Section 23(1). Since the mother was not the transferor, her application was invalid, and the deed cancellation was quashed.
The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on 1st June 2012. After facing years of domestic violence, the wife was hospitalized in July 2017 and moved to her parents’ home. She sought Khula, which the husband refused. She approached the Sada-E-Haq Sharai Council, which sent reconciliation notices and later issued a Khula divorce certificate on 5th October 2020. The husband challenged its validity, arguing the council had no authority to grant divorce. The High Court held that religious bodies like Muftis or NGOs can only issue non-binding Fatwas; binding dissolution requires court intervention. However, it affirmed the wife's right to Khula under Muslim Personal Law, stating that Khula takes immediate effect when expressed by the wife. The Family Court need only conduct a summary inquiry before giving judicial confirmation. The Court ruled the marriage was no longer subsisting and dismissed the husband’s petition. It emphasized no one can be forced to remain in a marriage against their will, upholding constitutional and personal law principles.
In T.V. Today Network Ltd. & Anr. v. Google LLC & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed the unauthorized use of journalist Anjana Om Kashyap’s identity by a fake YouTube channel '@AnajanaomKashya'. The imposter channel closely resembled her genuine channel '@AnjanaomKashyap-AOK', using her photograph and name to create deceptive content, generate revenue, and spread misinformation. The Court held that such misuse amounted to a violation of personality rights, unauthorized commercial exploitation, and misuse of the media house’s goodwill. It emphasized the importance of editorial control in news dissemination to prevent the spread of fake news. Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed Google LLC to take down the fake channel within 48 hours, disclose subscriber information within 2 weeks, and report revenues paid to the fake account within 4 weeks. Google was also ordered to remove any future impersonating channels within 72 hours of being notified. The order safeguards both individual identity and media integrity in the digital space.
In this case, Manoj Lalwani, Director of Ritu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging HDFC Bank’s recovery proceedings after the company’s loan account was classified as an NPA on October 21, 2019. A demand notice was issued under the SARFAESI Act, and an e-auction was scheduled for June 21, 2025. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, primarily on the ground of lack of locus standi, as the company had entered liquidation under IBC. Since October 10, 2024, the company’s management powers vested with the liquidator, making the director legally incapable of filing such a petition. The court further held that MSME restructuring benefits under the RBI’s 2016 circular were inapplicable, as the company’s outstanding dues exceeded ₹30 crores. No evidence was provided to show the borrower had approached the bank under the MSME framework. The court emphasized that once CIRP begins, directors cannot represent the company, and found the petition a misuse of process to delay recovery. It was dismissed without costs.
In State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of the respondent in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Hanuman under Section 302 IPC based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged motive of having an “evil eye” on the victim’s wife and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon on Hanuman’s disclosure. The FSL report showed that the blood group on the weapon matched that of the deceased (B+). However, the High Court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to convict in such cases. Upholding the acquittal, the Supreme Court emphasized that mere recovery of a weapon bearing the victim’s blood group is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction. It reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. The Court also noted that the alleged motive lacked clarity and was not backed by consistent evidence. Therefore, in the absence of conclusive proof, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) has launched the ‘Mediation For Nation’ campaign from July 1, 2025, with the aim of reducing the massive backlog of pending cases across courts in India. The campaign promotes mediation as an effective alternative dispute resolution method and encourages litigants to resolve civil, matrimonial, property, and commercial disputes amicably. The initiative will be implemented at the district and taluka levels, with support from legal services authorities, judges, mediators, and bar associations. It aligns with the objectives of the Mediation Act, 2023, which emphasizes cost-effective, time-saving, and voluntary settlement of disputes. Through mediation camps, public outreach, and legal awareness drives, the campaign seeks to empower citizens to settle matters outside the courtroom, thereby reducing the burden on the judiciary. The move is expected to bring faster relief to litigants and build a more accessible and efficient justice delivery system.
The appellant, a law student, was preventively detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate of Betul on July 11, 2024. The detention, extended four times until July 2025, was based on nine criminal cases—five of which ended in acquittal, one in a fine, and three still pending. In the most recent case, the appellant had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court found the detention order "wholly untenable," stating that the grounds failed to meet the legal threshold under the NSA. It also flagged serious procedural irregularities, including the District Collector deciding the appellant’s representation without forwarding it to the State Government and failure to consider that the appellant was already in custody through regular criminal proceedings. The Court ordered the appellant's immediate release from Central Jail, Bhopal, unless required in another case, reaffirming that preventive detention must strictly comply with statutory safeguards to protect individual liberty.
In a historic move, the Supreme Court of India has implemented a reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in staff appointments—marking the first such initiative in its history. The policy, introduced during the tenure of CJI B.R. Gavai, provides 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% for STs in direct recruitment for key posts such as Senior Personal Assistant, Assistant Librarian, Junior Court Assistant, Junior Court Attendant, and Chamber Attendant. This marks a significant constitutional development, especially under CJI Gavai, the second SC Chief Justice, highlighting a progressive step toward inclusivity. It sets a new legal precedent by applying reservation principles to the administrative wing of the judiciary, aligning with constitutional ideals of equality and social justice. For law students, this policy offers a real-world example of how constitutional mandates can be actualized even within the highest judicial institution, reflecting evolving judicial sensitivity to representation.
July 1, 2025, marks one year since the implementation of India’s new criminal laws—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These laws replaced the colonial-era IPC, CrPC, and Indian Evidence Act, aiming to modernize India’s criminal justice system. Over the past year, these reforms have focused on victim-centric justice, speedy trials, digital evidence recognition, and greater police accountability. Features like zero FIR, mandatory videography during searches, and time-bound investigations have shown promise in enhancing transparency and efficiency. Courts, police departments, and legal professionals have gradually adapted to the changes through training and awareness programs. While challenges remain in uniform implementation, the first year has laid a strong foundation for a simpler, technology-driven, and citizen-friendly justice system. The reform journey continues, with stakeholders hopeful that the new laws will ensure timely and fair justice for all.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the legal heirs of a negligent driver are not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case involved N.S. Ravisha, who died in an accident while driving a borrowed car in a rash and negligent manner. His family sought ₹80 lakhs compensation, which was rejected by the MACT and later upheld by the Karnataka High Court. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan reaffirmed the tortfeasor doctrine, stating that compensation cannot be awarded when the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The Court relied on precedents like Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan, ruling that a borrower assumes the legal liability of the owner. The insurance company’s refusal to compensate was upheld, reinforcing that no claim lies when the insured dies due to self-caused negligence.