Delhi High Court Refuses Suo Motu Action Over Online Trolling Of Saket Court Judge on Staying FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

The Delhi High Court refused to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged online trolling of a Saket Court judge after interim protection was granted to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in a case involving remarks against Newslaundry and its journalists.

They Are Ruining Each Other’s Career: Supreme Court Seeks Amicable Resolution In Rohini Sindhuri And Roopa Moudgil Case

The Supreme Court urged IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil to resolve their long-running dispute through mediation, observing that continued litigation was harming both careers. The Court made the remarks while hearing Sindhuri’s challenge to criminal defamation proceedings.

Deep-Seated Patriarchal Preferences Still Persist : Supreme Court Says Strict PCPNDT Act Enforcement Remains Essential Across India

The Supreme Court stressed that deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes and the covert practice of sex selection continue to necessitate strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act. Dismissing a doctor’s appeal, the Court observed that despite progress in gender equality, societal attitudes require significant transformation.

Delete The Post,  Social Media Is Not A License To Tarnish Actor’s Reputation: Bombay High Court Advises Salman Khan’s Neighbour

The Bombay High Court advised Salman Khan’s neighbour Ketan Kakkad to consider deleting social media posts and videos targeting the actor, observing that access to digital platforms does not confer a right to damage another person’s reputation. The Court stressed that pending disputes should be resolved through legal proceedings.

No Judge Will Be Able To Pass A Judgment: Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Threats To Ex- Judge Bombay HC Justice Gautam Patel

The Supreme Court expressed concern over threats and attacks targeting retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family, warning that such incidents threaten judicial independence and the administration of justice. The Court observed that fear and intimidation could discourage judges from delivering impartial judgments.

Shocking State Of Affairs: Allahabad HC Shocked As 4,847 People Were Placed In Preventive Detention Across Prayagraj And Ghaziabad

The Allahabad High Court termed the situation “shocking” after records showed that 4,847 people were placed in preventive detention in Prayagraj and Ghaziabad over two years. The Court expressed concern that many detainees remained jailed for days or weeks despite statutory safeguards under the law.

No Criminal Negligence If Driver Moved Bus On Conductor’s Whistle, Unreasonable And Illogical To Attribute Negligence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a KSRTC bus driver, holding that following a conductor’s signal to move the vehicle cannot by itself amount to criminal negligence. The Court ruled that a driver acting on the conductor’s instructions performs a normal duty and cannot be faulted without evidence of recklessness.

How Could You Take Possession Of The Plot?: Gujarat High Court Questions Yusuf Pathan Over Government Land Occupation in Vadodara

The Gujarat High Court questioned former cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan’s occupation of a government plot in Vadodara despite refusal of allotment approval. The Court indicated he could face liability for unauthorized possession and compensation for use of public land.

All Of Us Are Going To Suffocate And Die: Delhi High Court Questions Centre Over Gymkhana, Polo Club Lands

The Delhi High Court questioned the Centre’s move to reclaim land occupied by major sporting institutions, warning against the loss of green spaces in the capital. Expressing concern over worsening environmental conditions, the Court observed that unchecked urbanisation could severely impact public health and quality of life.

Mere existence of Dargah does not make land a Waqf property, Waqf Board Has No Automatic Claim: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that the mere presence of a Dargah on land does not automatically place the property under the Waqf Board’s control. The Court ruled that the Board must first establish, in accordance with law, that the property is a valid Waqf before claiming jurisdiction.