Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a policy of the Indian Army to reserve posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men and restricting the number of women who can be appointed to JAG posts. The Bench held that “The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory to women candidates. The result of such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective of their performance/merit, in their gendered category, thereby being destructive of not just the Constitutional scheme under Articles 15 and 16 as noted hereinabove, but also of the concept of ‘gender-neutrality’ and ‘merit’.”. The Bench held that the executive cannot restrict the numbers of women candidates and/or make a reservation for male officers under the guise of ‘extent of induction’ by way of a policy or administrative instruction and further that the true meaning of gender-neutrality was that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of sex/gender, should be selected. ARSHNOOR KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 772/2023, Date of Decision: 11 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court summarised the principles related to s.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and explained the circumstances when a registered society can be construed as a ‘constructive trust’ so as to maintain a suit under s.92 against it. The Bench was tasked with determining whether a constructive trust could be created in a circumstance wherein a society vests its property in its governing body through the deeming fiction employed under s.5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Bench held – “A suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest”. The Bench reiterated the conditions or essential pre-requisites to be fulfilled for the applicability of s.92 CPC – “(a) the trust in question must be created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; (b) there must exist a breach of trust or a direction of the court must be necessary for the administration of the trust; and (c) the relief claimed must be one or other of the reliefs as enumerated under Section 92(1) of the CPC”. The Bench held that the method of devolution of the property to the institution or its acquisition, the intention behind the grant of property i.e. for the benefit of the organization or for the personal benefit of any particular individual/family i.e. the historical setting and circumstances of the grant are to be considered while concluding whether a trust of a public charitable or religious nature exists. The Bench further held that the institution of the suit must be made by two or more persons “having an interest in the trust” i.e. the interest must denote a present and substantial interest and not a sentimental, remote, fictitious or purely illusory interest. It must be clear and direct. The list of reliefs in s.92(1) relate to removing a trustee, appointing a new trustee, vesting any property in a trustee, directing accounts and inquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged, or exchanged, settling a scheme, or granting such further or other reliefs as the nature of the case may require. The detailed judgment can be read at 47882_2024_8_1502_63019_Judgement_05-Aug-2025.pdf. OPERATION ASHA v. SHELLY BATRA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10048 OF 2025, Date of Decision: 5 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that This case dealt with unnatural/suicide death of a student. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law that “the power to transfer the investigation of a criminal case to the CBI is an extraordinary measure, which must be exercised with great caution, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances” and transferred the investigation to the CBI. The judgment is structured in two parts – Part A : factual circumstances and Part B : immediate interim guidelines. The Supreme Court held, “Mental health is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” And laid down 15 guidelines “which shall remain in force and be binding until such time as appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks are enacted by the competent authority”. The guidelines apply to all educational institutions across India, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies, and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation. The judgment can be read here judgment-184892024-25-07-2025-612080.pdf ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.18084 OF 2024, Date of Decision: 25 July 2025.

Latest News In this case, the informant did not approach the officer-in-charge of the police station nor the Superintendent of Police concerned as contemplated u/ss. 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC but directly went to the Magistrate u/s.156(3). The Supreme Court declined to interfere on the ground that though the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application u/s.156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies u/s.154(3), but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent u/s.156(3) to direct registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count. A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held, “It is a settled law that one of the modes for setting criminal law into motion is by giving information to the police authorities in accordance with Section 154 CrPC whereupon if a cognizable offence is prima facie made out to the satisfaction of the police, it may investigate into the offence even without the permission of the Magistrate. The information so given is ordinarily called the “First Information”, though this terminology has not been used under the CrPC.”. It was further held, “On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is crystal clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognizable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR. However, if such an information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned. It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities if he is not successful, he may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) 15 CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognizance in accordance with Section 190 of the CrPC.” The Bench also held that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly. ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.18084 OF 2024, Date of Decision: 25 July 2025.

Latest News In this case, the appellant, engaged in rendering consultancy services in the hotel sector, was a company incorporated in Dubai, and a tax resident of the UAE as per Article 4 of the Agreement between India and UAE for the Avoidance of Double Taxation DTAA. The issue related to taxing the hotel related services rendered by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in the form of a place of business under Article 5(1) of the DTAA. A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held, “The question of what constitutes a “place of business” under Article 5(1) of the DTAA is no longer res integra. In Formula One World Championship Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-3, Delhi & Anr. [(2017) 15 SCC 602], this Court unequivocally held that for a Permanent Establishment (PE) to exist, two essential conditions must be satisfied: (i)the place must be “at the disposal” of the enterprise, and (ii)the business of the enterprise must be carried on through that place. The Court further held that a PE must demonstrate the three core attributes of: stability, productivity, and a degree of independence. Among these, the “disposal test” is pivotal, meaning thereby the enterprise must have a right to use the premises in such a way that enables it to carry on its business activities. This test is to be applied contextually, taking into account the commercial and operational realities of the arrangement.” The Supreme Court held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and that income received was attributable to such PE and therefore taxable in India. HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. v. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9766 OF 2025, Date of Decision: 24 July 2025.

Latest News On 3rd July 2025, popular restaurant chain Swagath moved the Delhi High Court against a Telangana-based hotel named Swagath for trademark infringement. The proprietors of Swagath restaurant have also sought cancellation of their rival’s registered mark. The petition was filed on 3rd July and listed on 4th July 2025 before Justice Amit Bansal who issued notice on both the infringement suit and the rectification petition. Swagath Delhi, a popular restaurant chain operating in North India, argued that it had acquired goodwill and reputation under the mark ‘SWAGATH’. The petition is filed against Hotel Swagath, a restaurant and hotel chain operating under the name ‘SWAGATH’ since 1991. It currently runs 11 establishments across Telangana. The case will be considered next on 27th August, 2025 on the issue of interim relief M/s. Swagath v. Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-150/2025, date of first listing 4th July 2025.

Latest News A PIL has been filed in the Bombay High Court against the Prada Group seeking action against the global fashion house for its alleged unauthorised use of a design deceptively similar to Maharashtra’s famous Kolhapuri Chappals. At the Milan Fashion Week, the luxury brand showcased a pair of toe-ring leather sandals that looked way too similar to India’s iconic Kolhapuri chappals. The public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed by Prof Adv Ganesh S Hingmire (an expert in Geographical Indications) demanding a public apology from Prada and compensating the artisans from Kolhapur who have been making this footwear from centuries. The allegations are that Prada has ignored the cultural roots and GI tag of Kolhapuri Chappals and passed off the style as their own.    PROF ADV GANESH S HINGMIRE & ORS. v. PRADA GROUP & ORS., PIL/22677/2025, filed on 4th July 2025

Latest News A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan have dismissed a special leave petition on 2nd July 2025 holding that they are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court. The family members of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for his death in a road traffic accident. The deceased was driving a Fiat Linea car in high speed, rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules. He lost control over the same, due to which the car toppled on the road leading to his death. The deceased was not the registered owner of the car. The High Court held that admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being self tort-feasor, the legal heirs could not claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would amount to a person committing breach getting compensation for his own wrongs. The High Court had also held that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and for the negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company could not be compelled to indemnify for such wrongs. G. NAGARATHNA & ORS. v. G. MANJUNATHA & ANR., SLP (CIVIL) No.22411/2025, DECIDED ON 2ND JULY 2025

Latest News In a case filed by the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court will consider the issue as to whether its judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, is retrospective in application or not. A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh heard the matter on 24th June and posted it to 26th June 2025. On 26th June 2025, the Bench issued notice on the special leave petition and on the prayer for interim relief and passed the following order – “Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.17132/2024, wherein the Bench while reserving the order has recorded the following in paragraph 3: “3. The question that we are called upon for consideration in the present proceedings is: whether in 1 each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Indian Penal Code, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest. Another question that this Court is required to consider is: whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The outcome of this judgment will have a bearing on finally deciding this matter.” The Court appreciating the urgency of the matter posted it to 18th July. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION v. HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY & ANR., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9295/2025.

Latest News The Delhi High Court has ruled that employees cannot be forced to choose between working for their previous employer or remaining idle. A vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia held, “An employee cannot be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the previous employer or remain idle. An employer employee contracts, the restrictive or negative covenant are viewed strictly as the employer has an advantage over the employee and it is quite often the case that the employee has to sign standard form contract or not be employed at all. Further, the reasonableness and whether the restraint is partial or complete is not required to be considered at all when an issue arises as to whether a particular term of contract is or is not in restraint of trade, business or profession.” The Court thus held that any terms of the employment contract that impose a restriction on the right of an employee to get employed post-termination of the contract of employment shall be void being contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. VARUN TYAGI v. DAFFODIL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, FAO 167/2025, decision dated 25th June 2025.