High Courts judgments

Kerala High Court acquitted the accused in a murder trial, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence due to inadmissible electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment underscores the critical role of forensic integrity and procedural compliance in criminal convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Kerala High Court rules that unchallenged oral evidence from co-workers suffices to prove an employer-employee relationship under the Employees' Compensation Act, even without documentary proof. The judgment reinforces workers' compensation claims where employment records are absent or disputed.

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in BNS offences triable by a magistrate, emphasizing that prolonged trial duration combined with clean antecedents and no recovery undermines the necessity of continued custody. This reinforces that procedural fairness under BNSS Section 483 must outweigh mechanical application of non-bailability, especially in non-violent, evidence-light cases.

Rajasthan High Court holds that withholding an employee's salary without a specific, written order is illegal and arbitrary, even for medically reassigned personnel. The court directed payment of arrears, reinforcing that due process must be followed in salary deductions under service law.

Rajasthan High Court grants bail in a POCSO case where the victim and witnesses turned hostile, and the victim's majority was established through testimony and marital status. The court held that forged school records alone cannot sustain POCSO charges if the victim's age is disproven, impacting bail jurisprudence under BNSS Section 483.

The Rajasthan High Court reduced a minor child’s interim maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 per month, emphasizing the child’s age (1.5 years) and the petitioner’s income constraints. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in balancing financial responsibility with the child’s needs under Section 528 BNSS.

Rajasthan High Court rules that a nominee director cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complaint specifically alleges their active involvement or responsibility in the company’s affairs. The ruling underscores that mere nomination by a lending institution does not attract criminal liability without explicit averments.

Rajasthan High Court directs a ₹25,000 deposit as a precondition for producing the corpus in a habeas corpus petition, refundable only if the live-in partner agrees to accompany the petitioner. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in balancing procedural costs with fundamental rights under Article 226.

Delhi State Consumer Commission dismisses ₹57.5 lakh insurance claim, ruling the claimant failed to establish ownership of the Breguet wristwatch, the cash transaction, or the snatching incident with credible evidence. The judgment reinforces that insurance claims under the principle of utmost good faith require strict documentary proof, shifting the burden entirely on the claimant.

Rajasthan High Court upholds a minor girl’s right to choose her custodial parent under habeas corpus, directing police to ensure her safety. The ruling reinforces that a minor’s expressed preference can override parental claims in custody disputes, setting a precedent for juvenile autonomy in family law.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that contractual employees governed by the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Rules, 2022, are prima facie entitled to the same retirement age extension (62 years) as regular employees, citing parity in service conditions. The interim relief restrains termination at 60 years, marking a significant precedent for contractual workforce rights in the state.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses a complaint alleging battery range deficiency in a Mercedes EQC 400, ruling that mere mileage discrepancy without expert evidence fails to establish a manufacturing defect under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The decision underscores the burden of proof on consumers to substantiate claims with technical expertise, impacting electric vehicle litigation and consumer rights enforcement.

Rajasthan High Court rules that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against an employee after superannuation, staying a 50% pension cut. The judgment reinforces that pension rights are protected under service law, impacting retired employees facing post-retirement disciplinary actions.

Rajasthan High Court reinforces that even non-compoundable offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC can be quashed post-compromise, applying the Supreme Court's Gian Singh precedent. The ruling underscores the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process where parties settle amicably, even in serious offences.

Rajasthan High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offence (Section 308 IPC) after parties reach an amicable settlement, reinforcing the Gian Singh precedent that prioritizes justice over technical rigidity. This ruling clarifies that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed if compromise serves the ends of justice, impacting criminal litigation strategy for similar cases.

Rajasthan High Court holds that technical irregularities in a candidate’s Form-26 affidavit, absent evidence of corrupt practice, cannot void an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in election disputes, protecting electoral outcomes from procedural hyper-technicalities.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that concealing ownership of immovable property in an affidavit for an income certificate violates Revenue Department norms, justifying cancellation. The court mandates fresh verification before final action, reinforcing transparency in public service eligibility.

Gauhati High Court rules that provisional attachment orders under PMLA Section 5 must explicitly disclose the 'reason to believe' to comply with natural justice. The court also clarifies that properties representing proceeds of crime can be attached even if acquired before the scheduled offence, reinforcing ED's attachment powers.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that a litigant’s right to change counsel is absolute under the Advocates Act, 1961, and does not require a No Objection Certificate from the previous advocate. The ruling underscores professional ethics and the unconditional nature of the right to legal representation, ensuring litigants are not unduly restricted in choosing their counsel.

The Karnataka High Court directed authorities to consider a pensioner's representation seeking reduction of the commutation recovery period from 15 years to 10.8 years, staying recovery proceedings until a decision is made. This ruling reinforces pensioners' rights under service law and may set a precedent for similar cases under the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed a Rs. 15.63 lakh compensation award for a medical aspirant injured in a road accident, emphasizing that tribunals' quantum awards under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be overturned without substantive evidence of negligence or error. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on appellants challenging compensation amounts, impacting future motor accident claims and appeals.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that under Section 118(2) of the H.P. Tenancy Act, land vesting is not automatic upon failure to fully operationalize a project. Demonstratable steps like land development, construction of retaining walls, and bore-well digging suffice to prove 'put to use,' preventing arbitrary land resumption by the state.

Bombay High Court rules that private lands cannot be notified as 'protected forests' under Section 29 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927, unless they are government-owned or subject to government proprietary rights. The judgment quashes notifications issued without prior inquiry into ownership, reinforcing landowners' rights against arbitrary state declarations.

Jharkhand High Court reaffirms that divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires strict proof of cruelty or desertion, dismissing appeals based on unsubstantiated claims. The ruling underscores the high evidentiary burden in matrimonial disputes, impacting divorce litigation strategy for Hindu couples.