The Calcutta High Court ruled a deceased teacher’s brother is not “family” for pension under the 1981 Scheme. It upheld denial of died-in-harness benefits, noting no claim was made by the mother, the eligible beneficiary under rules.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said India is not a religious state and highlighted the historical context of the term “Hindu.” He noted the Constitution embraces all faiths, describing “Hindu” as a geographical identifier linked to people beyond Indus.
The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench referred a lawyer to the Bar Council for alleged misconduct in misleading the court. It also issued contempt notices, observing parties relied on forged documents to justify unauthorised construction claims before court.
The Supreme Court held amalgamated companies cannot claim set off of predecessor losses under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act without explicit provision. Dismissing Aspinwall appeals, it ruled such benefits require statutory backing and proper notice during amalgamation proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court held that police cannot freeze entire bank accounts during investigation without linking all funds to alleged offences. It clarified that under BNSS, seizure powers are limited only to amounts reasonably connected with suspected criminal activity.
The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and LIC on a plea for disability sensitive insurance guidelines. The petition invokes Articles 14 and 21, urging policy oversight to ensure welfare schemes for persons with disabilities are fair and accessible.
CJI Surya Kant emphasised that the future judiciary must move beyond physical courts and become citizen centric. He stressed transforming justice delivery into an accessible, responsive service integrated with daily lives, ensuring wider reach and efficiency across the country.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Delhi High Court to initiate contempt action against Arvind Kejriwal over recusal pleas. He termed allegations unfounded, stressing institutional respect and warning that yielding would set a harmful precedent for judicial independence.
The Supreme Court criticised Ghaziabad police for reluctance in registering FIR and investigating a child rape murder case. It noted a chargesheet was filed under POCSO, while emphasising prompt action in such serious offences.
The Bombay High Court held that staring at a woman colleague is unethical but does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. It clarified the offence requires invasion of privacy through observing or recording private acts, not mere workplace misconduct.
