The Delhi High Court cleared the way for further proceedings in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case by setting aside an order that had restrained the trial court from deciding charges. The Court dismissed Devangana Kalita’s plea seeking access to protest videos and alleged police WhatsApp chats.
The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men, holding that merely questioning the legality of police action cannot constitute a criminal offence unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly established. The Court found the accusations vague and legally insufficient.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a woman married during childhood cannot be denied reasonable maintenance, observing that she was victimised first by child marriage and later by being awarded a meagre maintenance amount. The Court emphasised the need to protect the rights and dignity of women.
The Allahabad High Court criticised Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad for allegedly obstructing police reform measures and investigative safeguards, observing that resistance by administrative authorities risks undermining judicial directions, accountability mechanisms, and efforts to strengthen the criminal justice system.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Wrestling Federation of India’s challenge to orders permitting Vinesh Phogat to participate in the 2026 Asian Games selection trials, holding the matter had become infructuous after the trials concluded and clarifying that all legal issues remain open in pending proceedings.
The Kerala High Court held that persons with Down Syndrome are entitled to protections under the National Trust Act and ruled that guardianship applications cannot be rejected merely because the condition is not expressly mentioned in the statute, granting relief to a father seeking guardianship of his daughter.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Enforcement Directorate must strictly comply with statutory requirements before provisionally attaching property under the PMLA, emphasizing that mere reproduction of legal provisions cannot replace genuine application of mind or justify attachment without specific material supporting such action.
