New Delhi, December 11 The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed social media platforms to take action within three days regarding a plea seeking protection of Bollywood actor Salman Khan's personality rights. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stated that she would issue a detailed interim injunction regarding other entities involved in the matter.

The High Court directed the social media platforms to treat Khan's petition as a complaint under the Information and Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and take necessary steps within three days. As per agency report, the court observed that if the social media platforms have any objection to any weblinks provided by Khan, they must inform the actor. Khan had filed the petition in the High Court to restrain social media platforms and e-commerce websites from the unauthorized use of his name, image, and personality, and to protect his personality rights.

The right of publicity grants an individual the right to protect, control, and profit from their image, name, or personality, and is commonly known as personality rights. Recently, several other public figures including Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, her husband Abhishek Bachchan and mother-in-law Jaya Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Ajay Devgn, filmmaker Karan Johar, singer Kumar Sanu, Telugu actor Akkineni Nagarjuna, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, and podcaster Raj Shamani have also approached the High Court to protect their personality and publicity rights.

The court granted interim relief to all these individuals. Telugu film actor NTR Rao Jr. has also approached the Delhi High Court in this regard, although the court has not yet passed any order on his petition.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday emphasized the need for humane treatment of dogs, calling them man's best friends and among the most affectionate creatures on earth. The court directed concerned officials to ensure that conflicts between humans and dogs in the national capital are effectively minimized.

Justice Mini Pushkarna instructed civic authorities and other stakeholders to submit recommendations for the rehabilitation of stray dogs. As per agency report, the court noted that sterilization alone is not a sufficient solution to address the increasing human-dog conflict, stating that although such measures have been in place for nearly three decades, there has been little noticeable change.

The court pointed out that the effectiveness of sterilization has been exaggerated and remarked that the current strategy is inadequate. During the proceedings, it was also brought to the court's attention that around 200 dogs, previously housed in a shelter, may soon be released back onto the streets due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) planning to demolish the temporary facility.

Further concerns were raised regarding the functioning of existing animal welfare infrastructure. The court noted that various animal birth control (ABC) centers are currently non-operational, and as many as 78 veterinary hospitals have been shut down.

The court also observed that a recent meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary of Delhi only discussed sterilization as a proposed solution, failing to address the broader need for sustainable rehabilitation mechanisms.

The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 17. Previously, the court had urged city authorities to formulate an institutional policy for the phased removal and rehabilitation of stray dogs from the streets and neighborhoods of Delhi.

Mumbai, May 11 — The Bombay High Court has reiterated that bail should be treated as a rule and its denial as an exception, stating that holding an accused in custody for a long time without trial is akin to imposing punishment before conviction.

Justice Milind Jadhav made these observations while granting bail to Vikas Patil, who was arrested in 2018 for allegedly murdering his brother. The court noted the severe overcrowding in Maharashtra’s prisons and emphasized the need for courts to strike a balance in such situations.

Justice Jadhav highlighted that trials are significantly delayed, and many undertrial prisoners remain in custody for years. He cited a December 2024 report from the superintendent of Arthur Road Jail, revealing that the prison holds six times more inmates than its sanctioned capacity.

“The legal limit for each barrack is 50 prisoners, yet there are currently 220–250 inmates per barrack,” the judge noted. He questioned how courts can maintain a fair balance between public interest and personal liberty in such circumstances.

The court stated that prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners directly affects their fundamental rights to a fair trial and personal freedom. Justice Jadhav stressed that although long incarceration alone isn't an automatic ground for bail, it is a serious factor that must be considered in light of the right to a speedy trial.

Referring to the essay "Proof of Guilt" written by two undertrial inmates, the court acknowledged the urgent need to address delays in justice delivery and ensure that the constitutional rights of accused individuals are not violated through indefinite detention.

Justice Jadhav concluded, “Bail is the norm. Denial must remain the exception.”

Mumbai, April 25 – The Bombay High Court on Friday ruled that the police investigation into stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra can continue over his alleged “traitor” remark against Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. However, the court directed that Kamra should not be arrested during the pendency of the case.

A division bench comprising Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice S M Modak accepted Kamra’s plea seeking the quashing of the FIR filed at Khar police station over remarks made during a comedy performance in Mumbai. The court clarified that while detailed hearings on the plea would follow, Kamra would be protected from arrest in the interim.

As per agency report, the bench stated that if the police wished to record Kamra’s statement, they should do so in Chennai, where the comedian currently resides, and only after giving prior notice. Kamra had expressed reluctance to travel to Maharashtra due to threats he received after the FIR was registered.

The court further ordered that if the police decide to file a chargesheet while the petition remains pending, the trial court should not take further action on it until the high court’s decision.

Kamra’s legal team had requested protection from any coercive action, including arrest, seizure of electronic devices, and investigation into his financial transactions. Kamra also offered to cooperate with the investigation via video conferencing, citing ongoing threats to his safety.

The FIR was registered after Kamra allegedly referred to Shinde as a "traitor" during a comedy show in Mumbai. The remarks, delivered as part of a parody of a song from the Bollywood film Dil To Pagal Hai, referenced Shinde’s 2022 political rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray, which led to the split of the Shiv Sena party.

Following the controversy, workers from Shinde’s Shiv Sena faction allegedly vandalized the studio where the show had been recorded.

The high court’s order provides Kamra with temporary relief while allowing the investigation to proceed, balancing both the comedian’s concerns and the state’s interest in probing the matter.

New Delhi, April 22 – Yoga guru Ramdev on Tuesday informed the Delhi High Court that he will immediately remove all videos and social media posts related to his controversial “Sharbat Jihad” remarks allegedly targeting Hamdard’s product, Rooh Afza. This assurance came after the court expressed serious concern over the appropriateness of the comments, stating that the remarks had deeply disturbed the court’s conscience, as per agency report.

The hearing was held in response to a petition filed by Hamdard National Foundation India against Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Limited. During the proceedings, Hamdard’s counsel informed the court that while promoting Patanjali’s rose sharbat, Ramdev had allegedly claimed that revenue from Rooh Afza was being used for constructing madrasas and mosques.

Ramdev’s legal team initially defended the statement, asserting that he had not named any specific brand or community. However, Justice Amit Bansal, who presided over the matter, called the remarks inappropriate and urged Ramdev’s counsel to obtain instructions from their client, warning that strict orders would otherwise be passed.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, called the statement not just defamatory but communal, accusing Ramdev of spreading divisive rhetoric. He emphasized that such remarks amounted to hate speech and questioned why Ramdev was interfering with their business.

Later in the hearing, Ramdev’s lawyer informed the court that all advertisements, whether in print or video format, along with related social media content, would be withdrawn immediately. The court recorded this assurance and directed Ramdev to file an affidavit within five days confirming the removal of such content. It also instructed that he must refrain from making any such statements, advertisements, or posts about competitors’ products in the future.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 1.

Mumbai, March 31 : In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the amount received by an individual under a mediclaim policy cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded for medical expenses under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

As per agency report, a full bench comprising Justices A S Chandurkar, Milind Jadhav, and Gauri Godse delivered the verdict on March 28, clarifying that the amount received under a mediclaim policy is a result of a contractual agreement between the claimant and the insurance company.

The court observed that any deduction from compensation on account of such insurance proceeds would not be acceptable. The matter had been referred to the full bench following conflicting opinions expressed by various single and division benches on this issue.

Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the bench emphasized that it is not just the power, but also the duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to ensure fair and reasonable compensation to victims. The judges explained that the amount received from an insurance company stems from a contractual obligation for which the insured has paid premiums.

The court stated that the proceeds from a mediclaim policy are meant for the benefit of the insured or their nominee, whether upon policy maturity or death, regardless of the cause. It concluded that the financial foresight and wise investment by the deceased or insured should not benefit the wrongdoer.

The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had awarded separate compensation for medical expenses, apart from other damages.

The insurance company argued that medical expenses were already covered under the mediclaim policy, and awarding them again would amount to double compensation. However, the court rejected this contention.

Advocate Gautam Ankhad, appointed as amicus curiae, submitted that provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act concerning medical expenses must be interpreted in favour of the claimant or victim, as it is a welfare legislation. He further pointed out that the insurer suffered no loss, having already received premium payments from the insured.

In a significant development, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has constituted a three-member internal committee to investigate allegations surrounding Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after videos shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner showed charred bundles of currency recovered from the judge's official residence. The matter escalated following a preliminary report by Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, who called for a deeper investigation.

As per agency report, in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court uploaded Justice Upadhyay’s report on its official website. The 25-page document, accompanied by videos and photographs, details the aftermath of a fire that broke out on the night of March 14 in a storeroom at Justice Varma's residence in Lutyens’ Delhi. The report mentions that four to five partially burnt sacks were found, allegedly containing remnants of Indian currency.

Chief Justice Upadhyay, in his report dated March 21 and made public a day later, stated that according to a report submitted by the Police Commissioner on March 16, a guard posted at Justice Varma’s residence informed authorities that debris and burnt materials had been removed from the affected room. Based on the available evidence and Justice Varma’s response, the Chief Justice recommended a thorough probe.

The internal inquiry committee formed by the CJI includes Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice G S Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge of the Karnataka High Court). While no fixed timeline has been announced for the completion of the inquiry, the Supreme Court stated that Justice Varma has been relieved of any judicial responsibilities pending the outcome of the investigation.

The report mentions that the fire may have been caused by an electrical short circuit, and the visuals provided by Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora show firemen dousing flames and recovering charred currency notes.

Responding to the allegations, Justice Varma strongly denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the claims as part of a conspiracy to malign him. In a detailed written reply to Chief Justice Upadhyay, he expressed shock upon viewing the video footage, stating that the scenes depicted did not match what he observed firsthand. He asserted that neither he nor any member of his family had stored cash in the storeroom and that they were unaware of any money being recovered from the premises.

Justice Varma said the room in question was generally used for storing miscellaneous items such as unused furniture, carpets, gardening tools, and crockery. He maintained that any cash withdrawal from his side was always carried out through official banking channels, including UPI and card transactions.

He further criticized the media for circulating unverified allegations without proper fact-checking and reiterated that his family and domestic staff had not seen or been informed about any burned currency.

Following the circulation of the police video and the preliminary findings by Justice Upadhyay, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for institutional transparency and integrity. The decision to form an internal committee and publicly share the findings reflects the judiciary’s commitment to uphold accountability even at the highest levels.

Ahmedabad, March 12 – The Gujarat High Court has resolved an election petition challenging the 2022 assembly election victory of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate Bhupendra Bhayani from the Visavadar constituency. This decision paves the way for a by-election in the constituency, which has remained vacant since December 2023.

As per agency report, Bhayani resigned from his position and joined the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), leaving the seat unoccupied. The election petition was initially filed by BJP leader Harshad Ribadiya, who had contested against Bhayani in the 2022 Gujarat Assembly elections but lost.

Justice Hasmukh Suthar of the Gujarat High Court disposed of the petition on Monday after Ribadiya withdrew his plea, which he had filed in February 2023. The withdrawal was based on the fact that Bhayani had already submitted his resignation to Assembly Speaker Shankar Chaudhary on December 13, 2023.

The Election Commission had conducted by-elections for five out of the six assembly seats left vacant due to resignations by MLAs elected in December 2022. However, the Visavadar seat had been left out due to the pending election petition.

With the legal hurdle now removed, the by-election process for the Visavadar constituency is expected to proceed.

Mumbai, March 3: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to refrain from taking any action against former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and five other officials until March 4. The directive comes after Buch, along with BSE Managing Director Sundararaman Ramamurthy and four other officials, approached the court to challenge an order for registering a First Information Report (FIR) against them.

As per agency report, a special ACB court in Mumbai had ordered the filing of an FIR against Buch and others on Saturday in connection with alleged fraudulent activities and regulatory violations in the stock market. Following their plea, Justice S.G. Dige of the Bombay High Court stated that the petitions would be heard on Tuesday, and no action would be taken on the ACB court’s order until then.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented Buch and three current full-time SEBI directors—Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G., and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney—while senior advocate Amit Desai appeared for BSE Managing Director and CEO Sundararaman Ramamurthy, as well as former BSE Chairman and public interest director Pramod Agarwal. The petitioners have termed the ACB court's order as arbitrary and legally untenable, seeking its dismissal.

Their plea argues that the order lacks legal standing as no prior notice was issued to the accused, nor were they given an opportunity to present their case before the decision was made. The ACB court, presided over by Judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar, stated in its order that prima facie evidence of regulatory lapses and collusion exists, warranting an impartial investigation. The court also asserted that it would oversee the probe and demanded a status report within 30 days.

The court further noted that the allegations indicate a cognizable offense, making an investigation necessary. It emphasized the need for judicial intervention under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) due to inaction by law enforcement agencies and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

The case originated from a complaint filed by media journalist Sapan Srivastava, who sought an inquiry into alleged financial fraud, regulatory violations, and corruption. The complainant accused SEBI officials of failing in their statutory duties, facilitating market manipulation, and permitting the listing of a company that did not meet regulatory standards, thereby enabling corporate fraud. Srivastava also stated that despite repeated attempts to approach law enforcement and regulatory authorities, no action was taken.

Buch, who recently completed her three-year tenure as India's first female SEBI chairperson, had earlier faced allegations from U.S.-based research and investment firm Hindenburg Research over potential conflicts of interest. SEBI has responded by stating that it will take appropriate legal measures to challenge the court order and remains committed to ensuring compliance with regulatory norms.

Ahmedabad, February 18 – The Central Government has appointed Justice Biren Vaishnav as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court from February 18 to March 2, as Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal proceeds on leave.

According to an official notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on Monday, Justice Vaishnav will discharge the duties of the Chief Justice under Article 223 of the Indian Constitution during Chief Justice Agarwal’s absence.

Meanwhile, the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) has passed a unanimous resolution demanding the legal transfer of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal to another High Court. The demand comes in response to alleged dissatisfaction over changes in the court's roster system, which assigns cases to different judges.

The developments come amid ongoing discussions within the legal fraternity regarding judicial administration and allocation of cases in the Gujarat High Court.

Ahmedabad – The Gujarat High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the shocking assault on a tribal woman in Dahod district, where she was brutally beaten by a mob and paraded semi-naked. The court also expressed strong displeasure over the circulation of videos of the incident on social media.

A bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Geeta Gopi remarked on Monday that such incidents not only impact the social and mental well-being of women across the state but also have far-reaching consequences due to unregulated social media.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 12, while the incident itself took place on January 28.

According to the First Information Report (FIR), the 35-year-old victim was allegedly in a relationship with a man from the village. When she was meeting him, her husband’s family, along with a mob, attacked her.

The mob assaulted her, partially stripped her, and bound her hands with chains, forcing her to walk through the village. The horrific abuse continued as she was tied to a motorcycle and dragged along the main road before being confined inside a house.

On January 29, the police registered an FIR against 15 individuals, including four men, four women, and four minors. So far, 12 accused have been detained and are facing charges under multiple sections of the law.

The Gujarat High Court’s suo motu action highlights the severity of the case, and authorities are under pressure to ensure swift and stringent punishment for those involved.