A Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court dismissed a public interest petition by a goldsmith against the award of a contract to Joyalukkas India Limited to supply 4,41,667 gold rings for newborns under the Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam, after it quoted Rs.0.01 per ring in charges (paras 1, 2.3). The petitioner left the scheme and every tender condition unchallenged, pleaded inconsistently, and was a stranger to the tender (paras 9-12).
In a writ petition by Kavin Kartik, a minor suing through the mother, and others against the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the Bombay High Court directed that the Union of India be impleaded as a respondent, issued notice to it returnable on 14 October 2026 and listed the matter that day for final disposal (paras 1, 3, 5). The petition is pending.
In an interim order, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur issued notice on a candidate's challenge to the recruitment for Assistant Professor (English) and allowed the selection process to continue, but directed that the final result of the selected candidates shall not be declared (paras 2-3). The petition is pending; the order records the petitioner's case and decides nothing on merits (para 1).
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the selection of bidders for a diet-supply tender at Government General Hospital, Ongole, after finding the appellant had suppressed the existence of an earlier, dismissed writ petition concerning the same tender.
Madras High Court questions the CBI and Bureau of Immigration's practice of treating Look Out Circulars as confidential, remarking that India "does not follow a Kafkaesque trial" and that a person affected by adverse proceedings has a right to know why.
A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court headed by the Acting Chief Justice struck down the rules and circulars under which directly recruited Class III and IV employees were paid 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale in their three years of probation (paras 7-8). Holding that full work must bring full pay and that the scheme discriminated against them, it ordered full salary for the probation period (paras 5, 8).
In a suo motu public interest case on drug-dependent jail inmates, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said Punjab's figures prima facie indicated "a serious malaise" (paras 1-3). By an interim order it asked Punjab to explain its action under Rule 29.22 of the Punjab Prison Rules, Haryana to file a further affidavit on counsellors and its SOP, the Union of India to place on record its methodology, and PGIMER to outline a medical protocol (paras 6, 9-10, 12-13). The matter is pending.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of conniving with a co-accused to get multiple cases registered in Punjab and Delhi on false allegations of rape to extort money (para 2). It relied on about two years and five months in custody, bail to both co-accused, offences triable by a Magistrate and only 2 of 30 witnesses examined (para 8). Before parting, it said a national-level portal of antecedents in repeated-complaint cases needed consideration (para 9).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused regular bail to a man accused under the Official Secrets Act and Section 152 BNS of sharing photographs of the Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, including Rafale jets, with a woman whose numbers operated from Pakistan (paras 1-2, 9). Even if it was a honey trap, the Court said, there was no occasion to share such photographs with an unknown person (para 6).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai ordered closure of a TASMAC liquor shop at Vellithirumutham, Trichy, and barred an FL-2 licence for a recreation club nearby, holding that the distance from a National Highway is the aerial distance, not the road distance a vehicle must travel (paras 13, 15). At 55.7 and 71 metres, both fell within the Supreme Court's 220-metre limit in K. Balu (paras 12-13).
The Bombay High Court at Kolhapur restored a hotel's food licence, holding that a suspension imposed forthwith to protect public health cannot continue once a re-inspection scores the establishment 97%, ‘exemplar’ on the authorities' own grading (paras 17, 30). The appellate authority had not considered the re-inspection report, and other breaches attract penalties under Sections 55 and 63, not continued suspension (paras 21, 29).
The Bombay High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's petition against a Mumbai magistrate's 2019 order issuing process for defamation on a complaint by a BJP member over his 2018 remarks about the Prime Minister, including the "Commander-in-Thief" post (paras 1-9, 22). Following John Thomas, it held that the complainant need not be the person actually defamed, and that whether the imputation extended to party members must await trial (paras 19-20).