Recent Judgements
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of “proof of right” under the Indian patent regime, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Patent Office refusing a patent application filed by Nippon Steel Corporation. The rejection was based on the Patent Office’s insistence that an employment agreement could not serve as valid proof of right, particularly when one of the inventors had passed away.
In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgement, the Delhi High Court has fundamentally altered the legal position of Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) in India. Holding that DNRs can no longer shelter behind the “intermediary” safe harbour when they enable trademark abuse and online fraud, Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued an exhaustive 248-page order laying down binding directions for DNRs, registry operators, banks, government authorities, and law-enforcement agencies. The ruling arose from a series of frauds involving fake websites impersonating Dabur India Limited, but the judgement goes well beyond the facts of the case, addressing systemic weaknesses in India’s domain-name governance ecosystem.
In a significant ruling clarifying the law on usufructuary mortgages, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right of redemption remains alive until the mortgage money is actually paid or adjusted, and limitation does not begin merely from the date of execution of the mortgage. The judgment settles a recurring legal controversy where mortgagees attempt to defeat redemption claims by invoking limitation, especially in long-standing agricultural and rural mortgages. The Court decisively held that mere lapse of time does not convert a mortgagee into an owner in usufructuary mortgage arrangements.
In mid-December 2025, India witnessed one of the most controversial episodes involving a sitting Chief Minister in recent years - an incident that sparked outrage across legal, political, social, and human-rights circles. On the evening of 15 December 2025, a video went viral showing Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar interacting with a newly appointed AYUSH doctor during an official function in Patna. What followed would become a flashpoint in national discourse. The footage shows the Chief Minister receiving an appointment card from the doctoridentified in multiple reports as Dr. Nusrat Parveen and upon noticing her headscarf/niqab (also described as a hijab), he gestured at it and pulled it down from her face. The moment, captured on camera, quickly spread on social media and news networks, triggering widespread condemnation, debate, and political unrest.
In a deeply disturbing case involving the rape and murder of a fiveandahalf-year-old child, the Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted the death sentence awarded to the convict, Virender alias Bholu, to rigorous imprisonment for life with a minimum of 30 year’s actual incarceration without remission, along with a fine of ₹30 lakhs payable to the victim’s family. While affirming the conviction of Virender beyond reasonable doubt, the Court declined to uphold capital punishment, emphasizing reformative justice, proportional sentencing, and the constitutional mandate to prefer life over death where two views are possible.
In a significant reaffirmation of administrative law principles, the Supreme Court of India has held that a State Government is bound by its own executive policies and cannot act in derogation of them unless such policies are lawfully amended or withdrawn. The Court quashed the naming of two newly created revenue villages in Rajasthan ‘Amargarh and Sagatsar’ after private individuals, holding the action to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India, in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Anr. (decided on 19 December 2025), has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional protection accorded to the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport as facets of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically held that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot operate as an indefinite or automatic bar on renewal of a passport, particularly where competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal while retaining control over foreign travel.
“Judicial appreciation of victim's evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.” – the Court said. Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down authoritative guidelines on how courts must evaluate the testimony of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution. The ruling underscores that minor inconsistencies or stereotypical expectations of conduct cannot form the basis for disbelieving victims who have endured organised sexual exploitation.
In a significant step towards strengthening gender representation in the Legal Profession, the Supreme Court of India has extended its mandate of 30% reservation for women advocates to the Bar Councils of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The order forms part of the Court’s continuing supervision over State Bar Council elections and reflects its commitment to institutional reforms and inclusivity within the Legal Fraternity.
“Youngsters should be made aware that parties to marriage are not subservient to each other.” – Court. Dowry related cruelty and deaths continue to remain one of the most persistent social evils afflicting the Indian society, cutting across regions, religions, and economic strata. Despite the existence of a statutory framework under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and penal provisions such as Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the grim reality reflected in crime statistics shows that legislative intent alone has not been sufficient to eradicate the Menace.
In a significant public interest litigation raising foundational questions about identity, biology, and constitutional recognition, the Supreme Court of India is set to examine whether intersex persons have been incorrectly subsumed under the transgender category in Indian law and policy. The petition calls for a clear legal distinction between sex characteristics and gender identity, arguing that conflation of the two has resulted in systemic invisibility and inadequate protection of intersex persons
