High Courts judgments

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a PITNDPS detention order after a 45-day delay in notifying the detenu of her right to represent to the Central Government and an unexplained five-month delay in deciding that representation. The ruling reinforces that Article 22(5) safeguards are mandatory, not directory, and procedural lapses of this magnitude render detention unlawful.

The Delhi High Court quashed the framing of conspiracy charges under Sections 120B and 302 IPC, holding that reliance solely on co-accused disclosure statements and untranscribed call-detail records does not meet the prima facie test. The ruling stresses that concrete evidential material, not mere statements, is essential for sustaining conspiracy allegations, benefiting accused persons in similar prosecutions.

A defence struck off for non-payment of costs can be reinstated upon payment of a nominal fee, as the Delhi High Court held that a curable cost default is not a ground for irreversible forfeiture. This safeguards defendants' right to plead in civil proceedings under the CPC.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation for an unlawful End-of-Life Vehicle seizure cannot be claimed via a writ petition under Article 226 and must be pursued in a civil suit. This narrows writ jurisdiction and directs vehicle owners to ordinary civil remedies under the Motor Vehicle (Registration and Functions of Vehicle Scrapping Facility) Rules, 2021.

The Division Bench dismissed appeals by the Punjabi Academy and Directorate of Education, ruling that Rule 101(2) creates a statutory entitlement to 50% of regular teachers' salary that cannot be contracted away. Qualifications advertised at appointment fix entitlement, and underpayment violates Articles 14 and 23, reinforcing the State's model employer duty.

The Delhi High Court acquitted three accused, holding the prosecution failed to prove the five-person assembly required under Sections 399/402 IPC. It also deemed the police’s contradictory testimony and the alleged overheard conversation implausible, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that coparcenary property devolves by survivorship when surviving coparceners exist, rejecting succession under Mulla's Para 43. The court also affirmed that a compromise decree entered with a guardian's consent binds minor coparceners.

The J&K High Court quashed a PSA detention order, ruling that reliance on stale FIRs without a proximate link to current public order prejudice, and failure to inform the detenue of the specific representation authority, violates Article 22(5) safeguards. The decision reinforces that preventive detention requires fresh, live grounds, not mechanical reproduction of past cases.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that a judicial magistrate cannot compel the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) when the complaint concerns only a non-cognizable offence such as an IPC 323 assault. The magistrate must instead proceed under Section 155(2) or treat the matter as a private complaint, curbing undue investigative authority.

The Allahabad HC held quadriplegia warrants 100% functional disability despite 70% medical certification, granted 50% future prospects under Rule 220A, allowed multiplier-based attendant charges, and awarded past medical expenses conservatively despite missing bills, nearly doubling the MACT award for a 22-year-old conductor.

The Calcutta High Court nullified an arbitral award that overstepped its mandate by reshaping the partners’ business, deeming such excess a breach of public policy. It further held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not forbid arbitration merely because no dissolution plea was filed, guiding future partnership arbitrations.

The J&K High Court upheld the arbitral award, applying Section 14 Limitation Act to remove prior writ and LPA time from the three-year limitation period. It barred the appellants from challenging the arbitration they initiated and capped interest on the award at 6% per annum.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside two temporary acquisition orders of a helipad, ruling that the State must serve notice under Section 81(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and that even an unregistered leaseholder qualifies as a ‘person interested’. The decision safeguards leaseholders from unlawful temporary acquisition.

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the rape FIR against a man who had lived with a widow for two years, ruling that cohabitation does not create a presumption of consent under the triple test. The decision underscores that a broken promise of marriage cannot convert a consensual live-in relationship into a rape charge. It limits the use of Section 482 to curb abuse of criminal process in similar cases.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside Pollution Control Board notices demanding environmental compensation because the Board failed to give the affected party notice and a hearing, breaching Rule 46 and natural-justice principles. The decision mandates that any authority must follow due-process before imposing compensation liabilities, impacting polluters and other parties facing PCB compensation claims.

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR for wildlife offences, ruling that Section 55 mandates a formal complaint by a statutorily authorised officer for cognizance, not a police-style FIR. The decision reinforces that special statutes with specific complaint procedures oust the general CrPC framework, barring proceedings initiated without jurisdictional foundation.

The High Court set aside the July 2026 order denying renewal of a foreign contribution registration, finding the authority failed to record a satisfaction of mind and breached natural-justice principles. It ordered a fresh hearing, underscoring that FCRA renewal decisions must be reasoned and afford the applicant a fair chance to be heard. NGOs and societies holding FCRA certificates are directly impacted.

A discharge voucher signed under protest does not extinguish the insurer’s duty to pay the remaining cargo loss. The Punjab & Haryana HC upheld the consumer forum’s jurisdiction, letting policyholders claim the balance despite partial settlement. This protects insureds from losing residual rights.

The Gujarat High Court struck down the State Tax Officer’s assessment order after finding it rested on AI-generated citations that do not exist, declaring such references legally untenable. It ordered all tax officials to verify any AI-derived case law before reliance, impacting future GST adjudications.

Gujarat HC struck down notifications that retroactively stripped exporters of Service Exports from India Scheme benefits, ruling that Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act cannot be applied retrospectively. The decision safeguards vested export incentives for firms relying on SEIS.

By holding that the limitation clock starts when the original electricity bill is issued, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a later supplementary demand arising from short-billing remains enforceable despite the two-year bar in Sec 56(2). This protects utilities from indefinite liability and informs consumers that corrected arrears can be billed even years after the initial invoice.

The Tripura High Court ordered the State to release the widow's statutory family pension and grant a compassionate appointment to the deceased fireman's daughter, rejecting the claim that the deceased's loan liability could offset post-death benefits. This ruling secures full entitlement for dependents of government employees killed in service.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a borrower's default on a loan pledged during bail proceedings does not, by itself, warrant revocation of pre-arrest bail under Section 483(2) of the BNSS. This clarifies that financial defaults cannot be used as a standalone ground to cancel anticipatory bail, protecting accused persons from bail loss over civil debt issues.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC cannot be limited to selected questions; the appellate court must adjudicate every point contested in the lower decree. This ensures comprehensive review and prevents piecemeal litigation in property disputes. Parties to first appeals must now raise all grievances at the appellate stage.