Allahabad High Court dismissed PIL filed by advocate, ruling lawyers cannot become petitioners for clients’ causes. Court warned such actions may constitute misconduct, stressing professional ethics and boundaries in public interest litigation proceedings before judiciary.
The Calcutta High Court ruled a deceased teacher’s brother is not “family” for pension under the 1981 Scheme. It upheld denial of died-in-harness benefits, noting no claim was made by the mother, the eligible beneficiary under rules.
The Supreme Court held amalgamated companies cannot claim set off of predecessor losses under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act without explicit provision. Dismissing Aspinwall appeals, it ruled such benefits require statutory backing and proper notice during amalgamation proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court held that police cannot freeze entire bank accounts during investigation without linking all funds to alleged offences. It clarified that under BNSS, seizure powers are limited only to amounts reasonably connected with suspected criminal activity.
The Bombay High Court held that staring at a woman colleague is unethical but does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. It clarified the offence requires invasion of privacy through observing or recording private acts, not mere workplace misconduct.
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 held that granting pensioners lower Dearness Relief than employees’ Dearness Allowance violates Article 14. It ruled inflation impacts both equally, making differential increases arbitrary and lacking rational nexus to the objective of mitigating rising living costs.
The Allahabad High Court cautioned that arbitrary administrative orders could undermine media independence, while hearing Amar Ujala’s plea over loss of government advertisements. The bench stressed such actions threaten press autonomy and the role of the Fourth Estate.
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 Allahabad High Court strongly criticised a man for making false, defamatory allegations against his wife and daughters, terming it abuse of process. The court held the plea stemmed from a domestic dispute and condemned such misuse.
