The Karnataka High Court held that religious institutions can claim compensation for a Mathadipati’s death in accidents. Expanding dependency scope, the court recognised institutions reliant on spiritual heads, affirming their role in administration and continuity beyond personal income considerations.
The Supreme Court directed that Teesta Setalvad’s plea for passport release be heard by a three judge bench. Noting her bail was granted by a similar bench, the court held parity in bench strength was appropriate for consideration.
CJI Surya Kant cautioned that excessive judicial interference in arbitration can undermine confidence in dispute resolution. Emphasising restraint, he warned that over intervention may weaken trust in arbitral processes and dilute assurance that arbitration agreements will be respected.
The Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea seeking safe repatriation of 26 Indians allegedly detained in Russia and forced into the Ukraine conflict. The bench asked the Centre to obtain instructions, taking note of the serious allegations.
The Karnataka High Court warned the ED of Rs 1 lakh costs if its challenge to Paavan Nanda’s bail proves unnecessary. The court directed proof of bail violation or concealment, stressing frivolous litigation would attract financial penalties.
The Supreme Court directed a man claiming Rs 325 daily income to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his wife. Refusing to interfere with the High Court order, the bench found his income claim “difficult to swallow”.
The Bombay High Court urged citizens to adopt better civic sense and follow traffic rules, citing developed nations. While enhancing compensation in a fatal accident case, the court stressed responsible road behavior to prevent accidents and ensure public safety.
The Supreme Court questioned a PIL seeking a national task force on food safety, asking for concrete research instead of broad claims. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved judgment after hearing the petitioner in person.
The Madras High Court Madurai Bench criticised politically motivated appointments of public prosecutors, warning it weakens justice delivery and harms victims. Justice B. Pugalendhi said selections based on allegiance over merit compromise competence, leaving litigants to suffer and undermining the administration of justice.
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) held that a deceased body cannot be used for protest, stressing dignified burial under Article 21. Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman criticised delays in last rites, calling it a violation of fundamental rights.
