The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that candidates participating in recruitment processes are solely responsible for regularly monitoring the official website for updates and instructions.

The Court observed that failure to submit documents within prescribed timelines cannot be excused on personal or medical grounds. It dismissed the plea of an Assistant Professor aspirant whose candidature was cancelled for delayed document submission. 

The Court observed that recruitment advertisements create binding statutory obligations on candidates. It further held that timelines mentioned in advertisements are sacrosanct and not subject to judicial relaxation. 

The Commission, once deadlines expire, becomes functus officio regarding such candidature.

[Aaradhana Buj v. State of MP]

The Delhi High Court pulled up Newslaundry journalist Manisha Pande for calling TV Today’s Good News Today content “shit” and warned that such language could damage her career.

The remarks came during appeals in TV Today’s defamation, disparagement, and copyright suit against Newslaundry over its critical videos on Aaj Tak and India Today. The Division Bench called the word “gross” and lacking journalistic decency.

However, the Court held that phrases like “method anchoring”, “soap opera” and “cheap thrills” amount to criticism, not disparagement.

The verdict has been reserved.

The lawyer representing the survivor in the 2017 Kerala actress assault case has submitted a complaint before the Kerala High Court seeking contempt action against the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court judge for allegedly making derogatory remarks in open court.

The complaint stated that the remarks were made during hearings in defamation cases connected to the assault case and were directed at both the counsel and the survivor.

It further claimed that the comments had no factual basis and seriously affected professional credibility and the dignity of the legal process.

The High Court has been urged to initiate appropriate action.

Yes, using dash cameras in cars is legal in India, as there is currently no law that expressly prohibits their use.

Dash cameras are widely used to record road conditions, accidents, and traffic incidents, and the footage can serve as valuable evidence in insurance claims, and even court proceedings, provided it is genuine and unaltered.

However, their use must comply with privacy norms. Recording passengers inside the vehicle without consent, or misusing footage to invade privacy or defame others, may attract liability under privacy principles and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Additionally, dash cameras should be installed in a manner that does not obstruct the driver’s view, as this could violate traffic safety rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Posting FIR copies on social media is not outright illegal in India, but it is legally sensitive and can invite consequences if done irresponsibly.

An FIR is a public document, and a copy can be obtained by the complainant or accused. However, circulating it on social media may violate privacy rights, especially if it discloses personal details of victims, witnesses, or accused persons.

Unrestricted sharing may also amount to defamation, contempt of court, or interference with an ongoing investigation. In cases involving sexual offences, juveniles, or sensitive matters, disclosure is strictly prohibited under law.

Therefore, FIR copies should be shared cautiously, anonymised where necessary, and only for lawful purposes.

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India to protect the core values of the Constitution from being altered by Parliament.

It holds that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot change or destroy its “basic structure.” This doctrine was established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.

Though the Constitution does not define “basic structure,” the Court has identified features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, secularism, and federalism as part of it.

Any constitutional amendment violating these principles can be struck down by courts.

The corporate veil is a legal concept that treats a company as a separate legal entity, distinct from its shareholders and directors. This separation protects individuals from being personally liable for the company’s debts and obligations.

However, courts may “lift” or “pierce” the corporate veil to look beyond the company’s separate identity in certain situations.

This usually happens when the company is used for fraud, tax evasion, evasion of legal obligations, or to defeat public interest.

In India, courts have lifted the corporate veil in cases involving sham companies, misuse of corporate form, or when justice, equity, and good conscience demand it.

The Supreme Court set aside directions issued by the Madras High Court fixing timelines for investigation and trial in multiple criminal cases involving YouTuber Savukku Shankar.

The High Court had directed the police to complete the investigation and file charge-sheets within four months, and trial courts to conclude trials within six months. 

The Supreme Court held that such directions were unwarranted, as a writ court cannot compel the filing of charge-sheets or fix rigid trial timelines without assessing the stage of proceedings.

It observed that such orders interfere with investigative discretion and may undermine the right to a fair trial. Investigating officers and trial courts were directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law.

[Savukku Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court quashed summons issued against Larsen & Toubro and its directors under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, holding that the Magistrate failed to properly apply his mind.

The Court noted that valid consent from the Pollution Control Board existed during the relevant period, and the summoning order was based on incorrect facts.

It observed that merely stating that documents were perused is insufficient without reasoned findings.

Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

[Sudhindra v. Desai & Ors v. U.P. Pollution Control Buard Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey Lko]

The Gauhati High Court held that a Magistrate is not required to issue a pre-cognizance notice to the accused in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court clarified that invoking Section 223 of the BNSS at the pre-cognizance stage is legally unsustainable, as the NI Act is a special law.

The Court set aside the trial court’s direction issuing notice and directed fresh consideration on cognizance and issuance of process.

[PD Savera LLP v. Galacon Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

The Doctrine of Severability means that if a part of a law is unconstitutional, only that invalid part is struck down, not the entire law.

Courts separate (“sever”) the unconstitutional provision from the valid ones, provided the remaining law can function independently.

This doctrine ensures that valid legislative intent is preserved while removing only the offending portion, commonly applied in constitutional and fundamental rights cases.

A trademark is a sign, symbol, word, logo, slogan, or design that distinguishes the goods or services of one business from those of others.

It protects brand identity by preventing others from using identical or deceptively similar marks.

In India, trademarks are governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and registration gives the owner exclusive rights to use the mark and take legal action against infringement.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Government to file an affidavit placing on record the number of vacant teaching posts in government schools.

The Court observed this while hearing a PIL alleging that several schools were either inadequately staffed or had no teachers at all. It noted that the issue impacts the fundamental right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution. 

The Court also observed that the State is obligated under the RTE Act, 2009, to ensure the timely appointment of teachers and maintain the prescribed pupil-teacher ratio.

The matter was listed for further hearing.

[Lok Singh v. State]

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Uttar Pradesh government is duty-bound to strictly enforce the ban on the manufacture, sale and use of Chinese manjha, particularly during the peak kite-flying season, to prevent danger to human life and birds.

The Court made the observation while disposing of a PIL seeking fresh directions for enforcement in Jaunpur district.

Declining to treat the plea as a new cause of action, the Bench noted that detailed directions had already been issued in November 2025 and in other pending matters.

The petition was disposed of.

[Himanshu Srivastava v. State of U.P.]