1. Odissa HC: Employee can’t be terminated over non-disclosure of criminal case
The Odissa High Court observed that an employee cannot be terminated over the fact that they didn’t disclose details of any criminal case filed against them, where the employee was unaware of any pending case against them, or a trivial case which resulted in an acquittal. The court also ruled that while verification of character and antecedents is a significant criterion for assessing a candidate’s suitability for employment, the ultimate decision must be based on objective standards accounting for all relevant factors. The appellants filed an appeal before the Division Bench of High Court, after the respondent who applied for a post after furnishing a verification roll, where she disclosed that she had never been accused in a criminal case, which was proved false after an investigation after it was discovered that three criminal cases were filed against her. However, the respondent claimed to be unaware of all the cases which were filed against her, and all of them resulted in her acquittal. Whether the suppression of a material fact should be treated leniently was argued by the appellants, for which the court ruled in favour of the defendant, granting her relief.
Case name- State of Odisha and Ors. VS. Sagarika Parida (2026)
2. YouTube can’t be forced to proactively monitor it’s content: Google to Delhi High Court
After the wide circulation of videos of April 13 hearing in a recusal plea moved by Aravind Kejriwal, where the filming the same and circulating it over social media was a breach of Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, the appellant, Vaibhav Singh, filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court highlighting the breach. The court had previously passed orders to bring down every unauthorised video of the April 13 hearing from social media platforms. However, Google confirmed that videos and clips uploaded in its intermediaries such as YouTube, cannot be always proactively monitored, nor do they have a way to know whether an upload shows unauthorised court proceedings. Google also argued that YouTube’s obligation is limited to taking down specific URLs which gets declared unlawful by any competent court.
Case Name- Vaibhav Singh v. Delhi High Court and Ors.
3. Madhya Pradesh HC refuses to interfere with disciplinary proceedings initiated against a civil judge
A civil judge preparing a biased judgement before the end of trial of an administrative office, Santhosh Verma, whose IAS award was withheld due to a criminal trial, raised questions about judicial integrity. The court, refusing to grant relief to the judge, declared that such acts are grave in nature and puts judicial integrity under danger, and dismissed the petition which was filed against the chargesheet issued against the judge by the High Court administration. It was held that disciplinary inquiry and criminal case arising from the same against the judge may take place simultaneously, stating that matters concerning judicial integrity cannot be kept indefinitely till the criminal trial concludes.
Case Name- Vijendra Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
4. Muslim laws permitting marriage on reaching puberty violates POCSO: Allahabad High Court
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that no religious personal laws, including the Muslim personal law, can violate the ban on child marriage bought by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, as well as the protection provided by POCSO Act, 2012. Noting that the Shariat law permitting marriage at puberty violates the ban placed on puberty and sexual intercourse with minors, the High Court rejected the argument by the petitioners who claimed that a girl reaching puberty, generally considered to be 15 years, is competent to marry under the Shariat law, and that PCMA should not affect the same. The court additionally emphasized that when it comes to legal age of marriage, PCMA and POCSO would prevail over any laws determined by any personal laws.
Case – Rubi vs state of UP
5. MP High Court denied Anticipatory Bail to the journalist accused of blackmailing GST Officer
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a journalist accused of blackmailing and harassing a GST officer, by sending her threatening texts. The accused, Pradeep Kumar Jatav, allegedly visited Jaya Sharma’s office, introduced himself as a journalist and demanded approval for his GST registration application. The rejection of his application caused him resentment, and he claimed to face a loss of 20 lakh rupees due to the same. The accused started posting defamatory content on Facebook against Jaya Sharma, alleging corruption, and photographs of her residence and some of her family members. The accused further threatened Jaya Sharma to falsely charge a case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and old murder cases. Additionally, Jatav demanded an enormous amount of 1 crore rupees from Jaya Sharma and threatened to post more defamatory content on non-compliance.
Case Title- Pradeep Kumar Jatav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Thank you LegalRath Team!