The Supreme Court held that employees retiring in March 2016 remained “in service” till 31 March under FR 56(a) and must receive revised pay benefits. The judgment overturns the Gauhati High Court decision and grants arrears with pension revision.
A lawyer stranded for 17 hours at Delhi Airport due to massive IndiGo cancellations reached the Gauhati High Court late, where judges showed rare empathy by hearing the part-heard matter beyond official court hours.
The e-Courts and Video Conferencing (VC) system has significantly boosted judicial efficiency in the Gauhati High Court and its district courts, enabling the disposal of over 8,00,970 cases and marking a major milestone in India’s digital justice transformation.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a promotion issued after retirement cannot be used to extend an employee’s tenure. However, it held that notional financial benefits may still be granted up to the retirement date under the CAS.
A Gandhinagar court has issued notices to journalists Abhisar Sharma and Raju Parulekar in a criminal defamation case filed by Adani Group over alleged false claims. Both have been directed to appear on September 20.
Delhi HC refused to hear Bhanu Tatak’s challenge against travel restrictions citing lack of jurisdiction. Court directed her to approach Gauhati High Court’s Arunachal Pradesh Bench.
Gauhati High Court upholds press freedom, ruling that journalism cannot be criminalised for highlighting issues of religious fundamentalism, militancy, migration and demographic threats in Assam.
Gauhati High Court shocked over 3000 bighas of tribal district land allotted to a private company, questioning legality, Sixth Schedule protections, and impact on local rights.
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to a man accused of posting “I Love Pakistan” on Instagram following the Pahalgam terror attack, noting the need to balance national security concerns with individual rights and liberty.
Former Nagaland judge Zhimomi, who earlier got anticipatory bail in the related criminal case, moved the Supreme Court for relief in the disciplinary action. The Court refused, saying, “Exonerate yourself, face the proceeding and come out clean.”
