The U.S. DOJ told a federal court that the criminal case was filed without a realistic prospect of trial. It sought dismissal citing legal, evidentiary and practical considerations.
The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, as such evidence may be necessary for fair matrimonial proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial order is subject to appellate or revisional scrutiny. The Court directed senior officials to act against those issuing threats and protect judicial independence.
The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It ruled that authorities must establish genuine threats to public safety before restricting constitutional freedoms.
The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if caused by suicide. It awarded Rs. 18.44 lakh compensation, emphasizing the State’s duty to protect persons in custody.
Madras HC held morphed obscene images are a serious attack on a woman’s privacy and dignity. It directed prompt police action and preservation of digital evidence.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the acquittal after finding the relationship was consensual. A later refusal to marry did not establish rape in the facts of the case.
The Patna High Court held that media must avoid labels implying guilt before a trial concludes. It directed news platforms to restrict reporting to factual developments and protect the accuseds right to a fair trial.
The Jharkhand High Court held that a marriage marked by 36 years of separation had become a “dead wood marriage,” justifying dissolution. It also enhanced the wife’s permanent alimony from ₹10 lakh to ₹40 lakh.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that filing of a challan or charge-sheet alone is not a valid ground to reject anticipatory bail. Courts must examine the facts of each case and the accused’s apprehension of arrest before deciding the application.
