The Allahabad High Court sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh government over omission of “Hon’ble” before a Union Minister’s name in an FIR. The Bench stressed police must follow protocol by adding appropriate honorifics.
The Supreme Court told the Delhi High Court that it does not maintain judge-wise records of corruption or misconduct complaints. The Court said collecting such information would require diverting significant resources and may also be exempt under the RTI Act.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant inaugurated a modern district court complex and LLSA building in Leh to strengthen judicial infrastructure. The new facilities aim to improve access to justice and efficiency in Ladakh’s legal system.
The Rajasthan High Court held that criminal contempt law does not protect judges’ personal ego. It clarified that personal criticism of a presiding officer, without affecting justice administration or scandalising the institution, ordinarily does not amount to criminal contempt.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed Fox Mandal & Co’s plea against a CESTAT remand, with Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe ruling no grounds existed to expand or revisit the tribunal’s directions.
Delhi High Court judge Jyoti Singh criticised frequent absence of Central government lawyers in patent cases, asking Chetan Sharma to address non-appearance in matters involving Controller of Patents and Designs, warning situation unacceptable.
Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta said the Collegium did not always protect judges who showed courage and integrity in the past. He warned that lack of protection may discourage judges from choosing ethics over career growth.
Surya Kant recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the law on appointment of Election Commissioners. A Bench including Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was scheduled to hear the matter.
The Supreme Court of India has designated seven former High Court judges as Senior Advocates following a Full Court meeting led by the Chief Justice of India. A March 19, 2026 notification grants retrospective effect from March 18, 2026.
The Supreme Court resolved an ambiguous Chandigarh law officer exam question after conflicting High Court rulings. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that determining which constitutional schedule is immune from judicial review is unsuitable for multiple-choice evaluation.
