The Orissa High Court held that a father cannot be denied custody of his minor child merely because he failed to produce the child’s birth certificate or the death certificate of his wife.

The Court observed that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian after the mother’s death.

The Family Court’s order denying custody on technical grounds was set aside, and the maternal grandfather was directed to hand over the child, aged about five and a half, to the father, while allowing visitation rights.

[Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a GST demand cannot exceed the amount stated in the show cause notice, and any higher demand violates principles of fairness under GST law.

The Court set aside a demand issued against a goods transport agency, after finding that authorities had raised a higher figure in the final order without allowing the taxpayer to respond.

The Court said that tax officers must strictly adhere to the limits and grounds specified in the notice, and any deviation makes the demand unsustainable.

The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. 

[XYZ Transport Agency v. Union of India]

The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited liable for deficiency in service for unilaterally redeeming its Deep Discount Bonds before maturity.

The Commission said the company could not alter the bond terms or enforce early redemption without obtaining mandatory consent from investors. It was observed that such unilateral action violated the legitimate expectations of bondholders and caused financial loss.

The Commission directed the company to compensate the complainant and comply with the original bond terms.

The decision reinforces investor protection under the consumer law framework. 

[Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited v. Jagdish Chand]

The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service after it unilaterally cancelled a flat allotted to the complainant and resold the unit while retaining the amounts paid.

The complainant had booked a 1 BHK studio apartment and made timely payments, but the developer failed to deliver possession and later cancelled the allotment without any valid justification.

The Commission said such conduct violated consumer rights and directed the developer to refund the deposited amount with compensation.

The ruling reiterates that builders cannot alter or cancel allotments arbitrarily. 

[Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Kumar]

The Allahabad High Court held that distributing the Bible or preaching a religion does not amount to an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The Court said the Act requires a specific victim alleging conversion through force, allurement, or undue influence, which was absent when the FIR was lodged.

It criticised the UP Police for acting in haste and arresting the accused without verifying the existence of any such victim. Noting inconsistencies in the complaint, the Court sought an explanation from the complainant and issued notice.

The matter will be heard again after four weeks. 

[Ram Kewal Bharti v. State of U.P.]

The Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly has passed the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Bill, 2025, removing the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court from the committee that selects the Chairperson and Members of the state RERA.

The amendment places the selection process under a new committee headed by the Chief Secretary, with senior administrative officials as members.

The government said the change aims to streamline appointments and align the process with administrative needs.

The amendment also revises certain procedural provisions related to RERA functioning. The Bill will come into effect after receiving the Governor’s assent. 

[State of Himachal Pradesh v. RERA Selection Amendment]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a Family Court’s divorce decree granted to a husband based on photographs showing the wife committing adultery, even though no Section 65B Certificate under the Indian Evidence Act was filed.

The Court observed that the Indian Evidence Act provisions are not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases, and Family Courts may receive any report, statement, or document to ascertain the truth under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

The wife’s appeal challenging reliance on the photographs was dismissed, as she failed to rebut their authenticity.

Finding her objections unsubstantiated, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the divorce decree.

[L v. RD]

The Supreme Court granted bail to a college teacher accused of posting pro-Pakistan and obscene content on social media, noting that he has already spent six months in custody and the trial will take time to conclude.

The Bench said the prosecution still has witnesses left to examine, and directed the accused to furnish bail bonds and remain present for every hearing.

It, however, made it clear that the bail order cannot be used to seek reinstatement, especially in view of separate allegations that he had behaved inappropriately with female students.

The teacher had moved the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court denied him bail in July.

[Abedin v. State of Assam]

The Lok Sabha introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, to protect employees from work-related calls, emails, or messages outside official hours.

The Bill allows workers to ignore after-hours communication without facing disciplinary action. Employers must provide overtime pay if employees voluntarily respond beyond working hours.

The legislation also proposes a mechanism to ensure compliance and promote employee welfare, including counselling and digital detox initiatives. Violations could attract penalties based on total employee remuneration.

The Bill aims to establish clear workplace boundaries and safeguard mental health, while addressing challenges of remote and hybrid work.

A Kerala court acquitted actor Dileep in the 2017 actress assault case while convicting Pulsar Suni and five others for the abduction and sexual assault.

The Court concerns the incident where the survivor was forcibly taken in a moving vehicle and assaulted, with the act recorded on video.

After examining the evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the first six accused but had not established conspiracy or involvement of Dileep and three others.

Sentencing for the convicted accused will be pronounced on December 12.

[State of Kerala v. Sunil NS @ Pulsar Suni]

The Kerala HC upheld a preventive detention order under the PIT-NDPS Act issued against a detenu involved in drug-trafficking offences.

The Court was dealing with a challenge based on the absence of an express finding that the detenu was “likely to be released on bail,” delay in issuing the order, and the availability of bail-cancellation proceedings.

It held that the authority’s satisfaction could be inferred from the order, which noted his custody, antecedents, high propensity to resume trafficking and that even conditional bail would not restrain him. The Court also rejected the delay argument and clarified that preventive detention need not wait for bail cancellation.

The writ petition was dismissed.

[Raju K K v. State of Kerala] 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts cannot substitute the view of a subject expert in exam evaluation unless it is patently incorrect on the face of the record.

In a plea filed by a constable aspirant denied one mark in the 2025 screening test, the Court noted that the recruitment commission had received over 1,200 objections and had forwarded all of them, including the petitioner’s, to subject experts for review.

Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the paper-setter is the best person to assess correctness, and since due process was followed, no interference was warranted.

[Veeku v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Allahabad High Court has refused anticipatory bail to folk singer Neha Singh Rathore, booked for tweets made after the Pahalgam terror attack.

The Court held that her posts, which referred to the Prime Minister in a “disrespectful” manner during a sensitive time, required full investigation and were not protected speech.

It also took note of her alleged non-cooperation with the investigation.

While denying relief, the Court clarified that she may raise all legal objections at later stages.

[Neha Singh Rathore v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr]

The Bombay High Court has held that pineapple slices, tidbits, and fruit cocktails preserved in sugar syrup and sealed in tins cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” under Entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Since these are processed and preserved products, which are not perishable fruits in their natural state, they fall under taxable preserved-food categories.

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order that classified such canned fruits as fresh produce.