Search cases

In re: Cleaning of the Godavari River

Social activists filed a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court seeking measures to curb pollution in the Godavari River. As reported on 22 October 2026, the court directed the Nashik municipal authorities to submit an action plan for cleaning the river within two weeks and ordered the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to file a status report on effluent treatment plants.

In re: Availability and cleanliness of women's public toilets in Delhi

The Delhi High Court is hearing a petition regarding the inadequate number and poor maintenance of public toilets for women in the city. The court has observed that access to hygienic public toilets is an essential component of the right to life and has proposed surprise inspections by social work students to monitor the situation.

Shriram Pal Saini vs Shri Anil Kumar

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court ruled that the seller could not automatically forfeit the buyer's earnest money without proving actual loss or legal injury under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, despite the buyer failing to prove their own financial readiness.

State of Rajasthan vs Mahesh Joshi and Mukesh Pathak — Jal Jeevan Mission corruption case

Former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi and Mukesh Pathak faced allegations of corruption in the Jal Jeevan Mission project, leading to their arrest by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Following the Supreme Court's orders on 16 October 2026 and 19 October 2026, the court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order from 13 August 2026 and granted both individuals regular bail. In its formal judgment issued on 22 October 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated that pre-trial detention should not function as punishment.

In re: Challenge to detention order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has summoned the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar to appear in person and produce the original records concerning a detention order. The court observed that the order appeared to have been lifted mechanically from a police dossier without an independent application of mind by the detaining authority.

State of Maharashtra vs 20 unidentified accused — Lonavala call centre fraud case

Twenty individuals were arrested on 16 October 2026 for allegedly operating an illegal call centre in Lonavala that defrauded foreign nationals through fake drug-related threats. On 22 October 2026, the Bombay High Court ordered their release after ruling that their detention was illegal due to the absence of cognizance and a valid remand warrant.

DB vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a lower court order in a dowry case, clarifying that a dowry demand made after marriage is punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act even in the absence of a pre-marriage agreement or a fixed initial amount. The High Court observed that the Sessions Court erred in disregarding evidence of a subsequent demand for ₹8 lakh due to discrepancies regarding an earlier transaction.

State of Karnataka vs. Unnamed Accused (Father of minor driver)

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition to quash culpable homicide charges against Nadeem ur Rehman, a 51-year-old from Mysuru, for allegedly allowing his minor son to drive a vehicle involved in a 2020 fatal crash. As reported on 22 October 2026, the court ruled that the trial must proceed to determine his liability, while clarifying that a minor's knowledge cannot be automatically attributed to a parent solely based on their relationship.

In re: Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors for POCSO cases

The Kerala High Court quashed a State Government Order that permitted Special Public Prosecutors for POCSO cases to handle non-POCSO matters on 14 October 2026. The Court directed the State to appoint exclusive prosecutors within six weeks of that date. On 22 October 2026, the Court further ordered the State Government to evaluate the establishment of 13 additional permanent and exclusive POCSO Special Courts and report its decision to the Court.

Restaurant Owners vs State of Gujarat — Non-veg food ban near Somnath Temple

Six restaurant owners have filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging a government directive banning the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food within a 500-metre radius of the Somnath Temple. The state government has defended the policy, arguing that the right to carry out business cannot supersede the religious significance and sanctity of pilgrimage sites.

Sheetal Mafatlal vs Mafatlal Dyes and Chemicals Ltd — Ownership of paintings in liquidation estate

The Bombay High Court adjudicated a dispute regarding the ownership of five paintings, ruling that they form part of the liquidation estate of Mafatlal Dyes and Chemicals Limited. The court rejected claims made by Sheetal Mafatlal over these artworks and ordered their auction to proceed, while litigation regarding other paintings remains pending.

State vs Three Accused — 1983 Fatehpur Gangrape case

The Allahabad High Court acquitted three individuals in a 1983 gangrape case, setting aside their previous conviction. The court cited significant contradictions in witness testimony, unexplained inconsistencies in evidence, and a six-day delay in the filing of the FIR as grounds for the acquittal, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Meira Kumar vs State of Bihar

The Patna High Court ruled that former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is entitled to compensation for land acquired by the state government in 1976. The court quashed a District Collector's order that had attempted to seize the land by cancelling the family's land records.

State vs. Unknown Accused — AIIMS Rishikesh CRE-3 recruitment fraud case

Police are investigating alleged irregularities in the Common Recruitment Examination 3 for the post of Wireman at AIIMS Rishikesh. One individual was arrested on 18 October 2026, and the High Court granted anticipatory bail to another accused, Saumya, on 21 October 2026. A suspect named Vinayak was reported to be evading arrest on 21 October 2026.

Asha vs State Bank of India

The Kerala High Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to refund ₹3.73 lakh to a customer who was a victim of cyberfraud. The Court ruled that since the customer reported the unauthorized transaction to both the bank and the police within the prescribed time limit, the bank failed to establish that the victim acted with negligence.

A vs B — Maintenance application by maternal grandmother

The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a revision petition regarding the maintainability of a maintenance application filed on behalf of a minor girl by her maternal grandmother. The court held that a maternal grandmother who has sufficient interest in the minor can file such an application without being formally appointed as a legal guardian.

Mahammed Hanif and others vs State of Karnataka and another

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against individuals for putting up posters criticizing a Supreme Court judgment. The court ruled that expressing dissent against a judicial verdict, even in strong terms, does not constitute the offense of promoting enmity between groups or outraging religious feelings.

State vs Rajpal Yadav — Cheque bounce case

The Delhi High Court upheld actor Rajpal Yadav's conviction and three-month prison sentence in a cheque bounce case on 10 July 2026. Following his deposit of Rs 2 crore on 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court permitted him to travel abroad and referred the dispute to mediation under Justice Najmi Waziri on 21 October 2026 to facilitate an amicable settlement.

Indian Air Force vs Central Information Commission — Disclosure of Prime Minister's Special Flight Returns

On 20 October 2026, the Delhi High Court set aside a Central Information Commission order that had directed the Indian Air Force to disclose Part-II of the Special Flight Returns regarding the Prime Minister's foreign visits. The court ruled that such disclosure could compromise national security arrangements for these official flights. The petition against the Commission's order was allowed on 20 October 2026.

Bhilai Municipal Corporation Engineers vs State of Chhattisgarh — Paver block construction irregularities

Engineers from the Bhilai Municipal Corporation filed a petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging disciplinary actions and recovery orders initiated against them regarding alleged financial irregularities in paver block construction works. The High Court has granted an interim stay on the recovery proceedings and the show-cause notices issued by authorities.