The Delhi High Court Bar Association has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the Full Court’s decision to form a judges’ committee to examine raising courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction in Delhi from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore.
The Supreme Court of India held that absence of an accused’s name in inquest proceedings alone cannot justify bail if investigation materials prima facie indicate involvement, while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail in a murder case.
The Delhi High Court questioned the DHCBA’s decision to abstain from judicial work over proposed pecuniary jurisdiction changes, with Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observing that lawyers’ strikes ultimately harm litigants and grievances must be raised through proper legal mechanisms.
The Supreme Court of India clarified that courts may proceed with sedition cases under Section 124A IPC if the accused raises no objection, while hearing a plea by an accused jailed for 17 years whose appeal remains pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Supreme Court declined a plea for an early hearing of a case pending before the Allahabad High Court, stressing it cannot set strict timelines for already overburdened judges. The CJI cited an order noting a judge worked till 7:10 PM, exhausted and hungry.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that maintenance in matrimonial disputes should generally apply from the filing date of the application, but courts cannot retrospectively impose a uniform amount without assessing the husband’s actual income and earnings during different litigation stages.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology to review media content on Darshan Thoogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder case, observing that ongoing coverage threatened his fair trial rights under Article 21.
The Supreme Court observed that violence, greed, desire, and anger have become the main reasons behind rising litigation in India. Justice Dipankar Datta said courts cannot control these human traits through judicial orders, a view agreed with by the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court said anti-dowry laws suffer from both poor enforcement and misuse, allowing the social evil to continue unchecked. Calling dowry eradication a constitutional necessity, the court issued strict directions for faster trials and stronger awareness measures.
The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order remanding a revenue map correction case, stressing that unnecessary remands only create fresh litigation. The bench said courts must aim to reduce disputes, not reopen settled matters.
