On July 1, 2025, the Madras High Court took serious note of the custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a 29-year-old temporary security guard at Madapuram Bhadrakali Amman Temple. Ajith was detained by a six-member special police team in connection with a theft complaint and was allegedly brutally beaten, leading to his death. The court termed it a case of “police-organized crime”, questioning whether the State was killing its own citizens. Observing that Ajith’s body bore injuries worse than what a murderer might inflict, the court criticized the police for bypassing FIR procedures under the guise of a preliminary enquiry. Judicial enquiry was entrusted to the IVth Additional District Judge, with a report due by July 8, 2025. The court directed that all evidence be handed over and ordered protection for eyewitnesses, along with disciplinary action against responsible officials. It further demanded a status report from the State to ensure accountability and fair investigation.
On July 1, 2025, the Madras High Court took serious note of the custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a 29-year-old temporary security guard at Madapuram Bhadrakali Amman Temple. Ajith was detained by a six-member special police team in connection with a theft complaint and was allegedly brutally beaten, leading to his death. The court termed it a case of “police-organized crime”, questioning whether the State was killing its own citizens. Observing that Ajith’s body bore injuries worse than what a murderer might inflict, the court criticized the police for bypassing FIR procedures under the guise of a preliminary enquiry. Judicial enquiry was entrusted to the IVth Additional District Judge, with a report due by July 8, 2025. The court directed that all evidence be handed over and ordered protection for eyewitnesses, along with disciplinary action against responsible officials. It further demanded a status report from the State to ensure accountability and fair investigation.
In a significant ruling dated 27 june 2025, the Bombay High Court held that pre-arrest medical examination cannot be used to justify detention beyond 24 hours, as mandated under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. The petitioner, a 58-year-old retiree, was taken into custody on 25 October 2024 at 1:00 PM in a cheating case involving over ₹3.37 crore. He was formally arrested after 32 hours and produced before the magistrate after 47 hours and 20 minutes, violating the 24-hour rule. The Court clarified that arrest begins the moment liberty is restrained, not when it's formally recorded. Only travel time to court can be excluded from the 24-hour window—not medical exam duration. Declaring the arrest illegal, the Court ordered the petitioner's release on PR bond of ₹1,00,000, asserting that constitutional safeguards cannot be bypassed through procedural delays.
In the matter decided on 01 July 2025, the Delhi High Court held that a valid arbitration agreement can arise through WhatsApp and email communications, even in the absence of a formally signed contract. The case involved a dispute between Belvedere Resources DMCC (UAE) and OCL Iron and Steel Ltd., following the cancellation of a coal sale contract worth USD 2,777,000 by SMN Ltd., which was later amalgamated with OCL. The Court observed that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arbitration agreements can be formed through electronic communications if the conduct of parties indicates acceptance. On territorial jurisdiction, the Court ruled that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The presence of a branch office or assets is insufficient to confer jurisdiction in a contract dispute. The Court also held that security/attachment cannot be granted, as damages are not a debt until adjudicated. There was no evidence of intent to defraud or dispose of assets. Accordingly, the Court upheld the arbitration agreement, declined jurisdiction, and rejected the security application.
On dated 20 June 2025 the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea of 18-year-old Sujal Mangala Birwadkar, who sought Scheduled Caste status through his mother’s 'Chambhar' caste despite his father being from the non-SC 'Hindu Agri' community. Though raised by his mother post-divorce, the Court held that merely having a Scheduled Caste parent is insufficient to claim caste-based benefits. Citing Swanubhuti Jivraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that claimants must show actual experiences of caste-based humiliation, deprivation, and marginalization. The Court found that the petitioner had a privileged upbringing, attended Kendriya Vidyalaya, and did not face social disadvantages. His mother's financial stability and the family's business background further weakened the claim. Reinforcing a crucial legal principle, the Court ruled that caste-based reservation requires proof of lived discrimination, not just birth-based association, and dismissed the petition accordingly.
In a case exposing a large-scale fraud in the RPSC Lecturer (Hindi) exam held on October 15, 2022, the Rajasthan High Court denied quashing of FIRs filed against three accused—Babu Lal, Poonma Ram, and Urmila—for their role in forging degrees and impersonation. The fraud surfaced when Kamla Kumari, provisionally selected at Rank 7, submitted a fake M.A. degree, later found to be obtained after the application deadline. The Court cited digital evidence, including CCTV footage showing impersonation, WhatsApp chats, and call records revealing coordination among the accused, along with alleged payment of ₹10 lakh. Dismissing arguments of insufficient evidence, the Court noted the public importance of safeguarding examination integrity. Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, it held that the case did not warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC, affirming the seriousness of the conspiracy affecting public recruitment and justifying continued investigation.
In *State of Gujarat v. Anilbhai Babubhai Dudhat*, the Gujarat High Court on June 30, 2025, upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The complainant, an 18-year-old woman, alleged that the accused, her neighbour, had repeatedly raped her, resulting in pregnancy. However, she reported the incident only when she was 7–8 months pregnant. The accused claimed a consensual relationship and submitted joint photographs as proof. The Court noted several key factors: absence of medical evidence indicating force, the victim's silence for several months, her conduct suggesting consent, and the medical report stating she was habituated to sexual intercourse. Additionally, by the time of the trial, the victim had married someone else. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the State’s appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of evidence, timely reporting, and behavioral consistency in establishing rape charges.
In Roshan Real Estates Pvt Ltd v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court, on July 1, 2025, held that an arbitrator's past professional relationship with a party could render them ineligible under Section 12(5) read with Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner, awarded a CPWD contract, later objected to the appointment of Mr. B.B. Dhar as arbitrator, as he had previously supervised their work as a CPWD engineer and had been removed in a prior arbitration in 2020 on similar grounds. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that such prior engagement created justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality, thereby constituting a “business relationship” that disqualified him. The Court terminated Mr. Dhar’s mandate and appointed Justice Rekha Palli (Retd.) as sole arbitrator under DIAC rules. This judgment reinforces that arbitrator independence is paramount, and statutory ineligibility cannot be overridden by declarations of impartiality.
In Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. Union of India & State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on July 8, 2025, ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can validly register money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), based on offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant argued that since the PMLA Schedule still refers to IPC sections and not BNS, such cases are invalid. However, the Court held that PMLA adopts "legislation by reference," not by incorporation. Under Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, these references dynamically adapt to corresponding provisions in BNS. The Court emphasized that the PMLA’s intent is to target crime proceeds linked to serious offences, irrespective of section numbers. Though a July 2024 executive notification attempted to update legal references, the Court declared it legally ineffective. The applicant’s bail was denied, and ED’s case upheld.
In Srinwati Mukherji v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on July 4, 2025, ruled that an under-construction flat, where neither spouse has ever resided, does not qualify as a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife sought relief under Sections 19(d) and 19(e), requesting the husband to pay pending instalments for a ₹3.52 crore flat in Malad West, Mumbai. However, the Court held that a “shared household” requires actual residence by either party at some point. Since the flat was still under construction and uninhabited, it did not meet the statutory requirement. The Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the DV Act is a welfare statute intended to prevent dispossession from existing residences, not to enforce obligations related to incomplete property transactions or compel financial contributions toward future homes.
In Saju v. Shalimar Hardwares & State of Kerala, decided on July 2, 2025, the Kerala High Court held that a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be served directly on the drawer of the cheque and not merely on a relative, unless it is proven that the accused had knowledge of such service. In this case, Saju issued a cheque of ₹92,500/- which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was sent, but it was received by a relative, not Saju himself. The complainant failed to prove Saju’s knowledge of the notice. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Thomas M.D. v. P.S. Jaleel, emphasizing that proper service is mandatory. The High Court acquitted the accused, ruling that service on a relative without proof of knowledge does not fulfill the statutory requirement under Section 138(b).
In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, decided on July 1, 2025, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) set aside a Family Court order directing a DNA test to determine a child’s paternity. Justice R.M. Joshi held that a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed legitimate under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, unless the husband proves "non-access" during the period of conception. In this case, the husband alleged adultery but neither explicitly denied paternity nor produced evidence proving non-access. The Court emphasized that "access" means the possibility of sexual relations, not actual cohabitation, and that DNA tests cannot override the presumption without strong justification. The wife’s conditional willingness to comply with a court order was wrongly interpreted as consent. The Court reiterated that a child’s dignity and welfare must be protected, and DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely. Accordingly, the Family Court’s direction for DNA testing was quashed.
In this case, the petitioner (mother) and respondent (father) divorced in 2015, with custody of their minor son (born 2012) granted to the mother. The father alleged he lost contact with the child after the mother relocated post-remarriage. In 2020, he sought custody, citing the mother’s alleged plan to shift the child to Malaysia and alter his religion. The Family Court (2022) favored the mother, but the High Court (2023) reversed it, granting custody to the father. The Supreme Court initially upheld this. The mother filed a review citing psychological reports from CMC Vellore revealing the child’s trauma due to the separation. The Supreme Court held the review maintainable as the child’s psychological distress was “new evidence.” Custody was restored to the mother, given the child’s emotional dependence and stable upbringing. The father was granted visitation: virtual interaction twice weekly and physical visits every weekend at Family Court, Ottapalam. Overnight stays were restricted. The Court barred the mother from relocating abroad permanently and ordered ongoing counselling for the child, prioritizing his emotional and academic well-being.
In State of Gujarat v. Natubhai Golanbhai Khuman & Ors., the Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of in-laws accused in a dowry death case. The young woman died by alleged suicide six months after marriage in 2011, following a ₹50,000 demand from her father for legal expenses. The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 304B, 306, 498A, and 114 IPC. However, the court held that a demand for legal fees does not qualify as "dowry," which must relate to marriage per the Dowry Prohibition Act. Crucially, medical evidence did not confirm death by poisoning, and there was no proof of abetment or cruelty. The accused also had sufficient funds, casting doubt on the alleged demand. The High Court found the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's 2013 acquittal as legally sound and evidence-based.
In Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors., the Supreme Court of India on July 15, 2025, held that pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A and cannot be reduced without proper procedure. Vijay Kumar, a former Chief Manager at Central Bank of India, was compulsorily retired for misconduct and his pension was reduced to two-thirds under Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The bank did not consult the Board of Directors or provide him an opportunity to be heard. The High Court upheld the reduction, but the Supreme Court found this erroneous. It ruled that Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Regulation 33 must be read harmoniously, and when the disciplinary authority also acts as the appellate or reviewing authority, prior Board consultation is mandatory. The Court emphasized that pension is not discretionary and procedural safeguards must be followed. It directed the bank to reconsider its decision within two months or restore full pension.