The Delhi High Court held that release under Section 436-A CrPC is not automatic for offences punishable with death. Sunil Maan, accused in the custodial murder of two undertrial prisoners, sought release after completing over 10 years in custody. The Court observed that Section 436-A explicitly excludes murder under Section 302 IPC, which carries the death penalty. Despite prolonged detention, delays were partly due to absconding co-accused, COVID-19 disruptions, and trial court backlog. The Court declined to evaluate the applicant’s role or conduct at the bail stage, noting that only 29 of 70 witnesses had been examined and mini-trials cannot substitute proper proceedings. Considering gravity, gang affiliations, and public safety, the bail application was dismissed, reaffirming that statutory release provisions are subject to the nature of the offence.
The Kerala High Court in Dr. A.M. Muraleedharan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India held that repudiation of a health insurance claim after eight years of policy issuance was illegal and contrary to Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Justice P.M. Manoj ruled that the writ petition was maintainable as the denial of medical reimbursement implicated the right to health under Article 21. The Court observed that LIC’s rejection of the first claim based on non-listed procedures and the second on alleged non-disclosure of a 2006 hernia surgery was arbitrary since the ailment (vesicovaginal fistula) had no nexus with the previous condition. Applying the doctrines of contra proferentem and reasonable expectation, the Court held that ambiguous insurance terms must favor the insured. LIC’s action violated natural justice and the principle of uberrima fides. Consequently, the Court quashed LIC’s orders and directed full payment of the petitioner’s medical claims with no further delay.
Delhi HC held that post-insolvency claims not part of an approved Resolution Plan under IBC stand extinguished and cannot be arbitrated. In JSW Ispat v. Bharat Petro Resources, Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31, it binds all stakeholders, and any claims not included are legally non-arbitrable. The Court also clarified that a former NCLAT Chairperson acting as arbitrator is not disqualified merely for past judicial involvement. Upholding the “clean slate” doctrine, the Court emphasized IBC’s overriding effect under Section 238, ensuring resolution applicants are not burdened with unadjudicated liabilities. Consequently, the arbitral award of ₹12.90 crores was set aside, reinforcing the finality and supremacy of the IBC framework over other legal remedies.
The Allahabad High Court discharged a wife and her parents from charges under Section 306 IPC, holding that no prima facie case of abetment of suicide was made out. The Court observed that to attract Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect instigation with clear mens rea under Section 107 IPC. In this case, allegations were general, arising from ordinary matrimonial discord. Remarks like “he should die,” made during quarrels, lacked intention or proximity to suicide. The Court held that mere harassment or disputes do not constitute abetment unless they leave no alternative for the victim but suicide. The discharge application was rightly allowed, quashing the Sessions Judge’s order.
In Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre v. M/s. Anand Distilleries & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed whether prior insolvency proceedings under the IBC barred criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had extended a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs to the company, secured by a post-dated cheque signed by the directors. After insolvency proceedings commenced in February 2018, the cheque was dishonoured, and a complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed in February 2019. The Trial Court discharged the directors, citing prior IBC proceedings. The High Court held that Section 14 moratorium of the IBC applies only to the corporate debtor, not individual directors, and Section 138 proceedings are penal, not recovery-oriented. Directors remain personally liable even if the company’s debt is settled under the IBC. The Court quashed the Trial Court’s order discharging the accused, reaffirming that criminal liability under Section 138 is independent of insolvency processes, and proceedings against signatories continue as per law.
The Rajasthan High Court in Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. criticized nursing colleges for engaging in “forum shopping” by filing petitions before the Jodhpur Bench despite belonging to districts under Jaipur Bench jurisdiction. Justice Sameer Jain observed that such petitions were filed with fabricated jurisdictional claims, adding dummy respondents to create artificial cause of action. The Court held that the cause of action arose entirely within Jaipur Bench’s jurisdiction, making the petitions non-maintainable at Jodhpur. Highlighting the growing trend of bench hunting and registry lapses, the Court imposed ₹1 lakh costs on twelve petitioners, payable to the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority within two weeks. It emphasized that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and the 1976 notification must be strictly observed, and misuse of judicial forums amounts to abuse of process undermining institutional integrity.
The Gujarat High Court in Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat (decided on October 1, 2025, by Justice R.T. Vachhani) upheld the conviction of a police constable found intoxicated while on duty at Pirana Toll Naka on December 14, 2003. His blood sample showed 0.0945% alcohol content, exceeding the legal limit under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner argued procedural lapses and delay in forensic analysis, but the Court rejected these contentions, noting compliance with statutory rules and the use of sealed disposable syringes. It held that conviction under Section 66(1)(b) was valid even though the applicant was acquitted under Section 85(1)(3), as both provisions have different ingredients. The Court emphasized that police officers are held to higher standards of discipline and integrity, and intoxication while on duty erodes public trust. The revision was dismissed, and the applicant was directed to surrender to serve his sentence.
In Hind Samachar Ltd. v. National Insurance Co., the Supreme Court addressed whether an insurer could recover compensation from a vehicle owner when the driver used a fake licence. The accident involved a truck owned by Hind Samachar Ltd., resulting in nine deaths and two injuries. The insurance company sought recovery, claiming the driver’s fake licence breached the policy. The Court held that the owner had exercised due diligence by examining the licence and producing its renewal certificate. Mere falsity of the licence does not absolve the insurer unless deliberate breach by the owner is proved. The burden lies on the insurer to establish that the owner knowingly entrusted the vehicle to an unlicensed driver. There is no duty on owners to verify licences with authorities. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s recovery directions, ruling the insurer liable and the owner free from liability.
In Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen (Supreme Court, 07/10/2025), the plaintiff claimed an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres from her mother, Khadijabee, but failed to prove public possession—a key requirement under Mohammedan law. The Trial and High Courts erred in relying on interested witnesses and modifying decrees without cross-appeal. The plaintiff neither mutated the land in her name nor exercised control for over 23 years, undermining her claim. Additionally, the suit filed in 2013 was barred by limitation, as she had constructive notice of mutations and sale deeds since 1989-1995. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding the oral gift invalid and emphasizing the necessity of contemporaneous possession to establish Hiba.
In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed road safety and pedestrian protection through a PIL under Article 32. Authorities in 50 cities and NHAI were directed to audit footpaths, crossings, subways, and foot overbridges for compliance with IRC standards, remove encroachments, and implement automated monitoring systems. New pedestrian crossings must be installed, prioritizing accident-prone areas. States and NHAI are required to establish online grievance redressal mechanisms. Strict enforcement of two-wheeler helmet laws and lane discipline was mandated using cameras, dynamic markings, and real-time dashboards. MoRTH and traffic authorities must regulate vehicle lighting, ban unauthorized equipment, and conduct nationwide awareness campaigns. All states and UTs are directed to frame rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act to regulate pedestrian activities and ensure proper design, construction, and maintenance of roads.
In Harish Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand (2025), the Jharkhand High Court held that a fresh anticipatory bail plea is not maintainable after rejection of earlier ones unless new circumstances arise. The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 304 and other IPC provisions, sought anticipatory bail despite two prior rejections. The Court ruled that all issues raised, including medical evidence and departmental exoneration, had already been considered. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi emphasized that under Section 482 BNSS (anticipatory bail), the scope is limited as the accusation and apprehension remain the same, unlike Section 483 BNSS (regular bail). The Court reiterated that coordinate benches cannot overrule each other, citing Mahadolal v. Administrator General (AIR 1960 SC 1930), and dismissed the plea for lack of new grounds, reinforcing judicial propriety and legal consistency.
The Supreme Court in Vijaya Kumari S & Another v. Union of India held that age restrictions under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 do not apply retrospectively to couples who commenced surrogacy procedures before the Act came into force on January 25, 2022. The Court defined "commencement" as completion of gamete extraction, fertilization, and embryo freezing (Stage A), prior to transfer to a surrogate (Stage B). Applying principles of reproductive autonomy under Article 21, presumption against retrospectivity, and the vested rights doctrine, the Court protected couples’ pre-existing rights. Couples who completed Stage A before the Act’s enforcement were exempted from age limits, provided other medical conditions under the Act were met. The Court clarified it did not question the constitutional validity of age restrictions themselves, only their retrospective application. Relief was granted to the three petitioners, allowing continuation of their surrogacy.
In Offshore Infrastructures Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether the right to arbitration is lost if the designated arbitrator becomes ineligible due to statutory amendments. Offshore Infrastructures completed construction work for BPCL and raised its final bill in March 2018. Disputes arose over outstanding payments, and arbitration was sought in June 2021. The Court held that even if the arbitration clause designates a person who becomes ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (as amended in 2015), the arbitration agreement itself remains valid. Courts have the power to appoint an independent arbitrator to preserve the parties’ right to arbitration. Regarding limitation, the COVID-19 extension was applied to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, rendering the arbitration application timely. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint an arbitrator.
In State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, the Supreme Court quashed the Rajasthan High Court’s orders recalling its earlier directive and transferring the investigation to CBI. The complainant had filed successive petitions for CBI investigation, claiming clerical error in the High Court’s January 16, 2025 order. The Court held that criminal courts have no inherent power to review or recall judgments except to correct genuine clerical or arithmetical mistakes. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) cannot be used to bypass statutory bars. The January 16 order was reasoned, not erroneous, and no clerical mistake existed. Filing successive petitions with identical prayers merely changed the label, not the substance, and was impermissible. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals, quashed the High Court’s recall and CBI transfer orders, but permitted the complainant to pursue appropriate legal remedies challenging the original decisions.
In Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC merely because the dispute dates back several decades if even one relief sought is within limitation. The plaintiffs challenged a 1976 will and sought possession based on title after mutation proceedings concluded in 2017. The High Court had rejected the plaint as time-barred, citing delay since 1983. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ruled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and must be determined based solely on plaint averments. The Court clarified that mutation entries do not confer ownership and that for possession based on title, the limitation is 12 years from when possession becomes adverse under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit on merits without being influenced by technical grounds.