Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Abhishek Bachchan, observing that unauthorized use of his name, image, likeness, and personality attributes creates public confusion and false perceptions of endorsement, thereby infringing his personality rights and causing reputational harm.
The Delhi High Court refused to grant urgent orders against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for tweets allegedly reviving earlier defamatory remarks against Newslaundry. The Court adjourned the matter to October 16, noting a balance of rights was needed.
The Delhi High Court has stayed CDSCO’s order to prosecute IndiaMART for allegedly listing illegal drugs, granting the e-commerce platform interim relief. The matter will be heard again on September 17, 2025.
The Allahabad High Court granted interim relief to SP MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq by staying proceedings in the Sambhal violence case. The court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to respond within three weeks.
Today, On 28th July, The Supreme Court has issued a notice on YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s petition seeking a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in Tamil Nadu’s Ambedkar Business Champions Scheme. He had challenged the Madras High Court’s dismissal of his plea.
The Delhi High Court has stayed the release of “Udaipur Files” until the Centre decides on a plea challenging its CBFC certification. The film, based on the 2022 Udaipur murder, is alleged to threaten communal peace.
The Uttarakhand High Court permitted to continue the panchayat elections after going through the reservation roster. It lifted the earlier stay order of June 23, bringing major relief to the state government.
The Karnataka High Court has granted interim relief to former MP Anantkumar Hegde in a road rage case where he is accused of instigating an assault after a driving altercation. The incident, which occurred on June 23, involved a complaint by Khan, who alleged he was beaten, resulting in significant injuries.
Today, On 25th June, The Supreme Court took suo motu notice after a lawyer was summoned by Gujarat Police over his client’s case. It said such actions are a “direct threat to the administration of justice” and harm legal independence.
