The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Raisen's Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations that police personnel 'deliberately and maliciously' subjected the petitioner and other co-accused persons to a public parade.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that to establish a violation under Article 21, the petitioner ought to have proved that the actions of the police officers were 'deliberate and malicious and intended to humiliate or degrade' the petitioner. 

However, the bench also noted that the settled position is that "mere transportation of the accused from the police station" to the court for production before the magistrate, even if done on foot under unavoidable circumstances, would not by itself violate Article 21, unless such an act was done "deliberately to humiliate with malafide intention".

"The concept of presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, and an accused person cannot be subjected to any form of punishment or public humiliation prior to conviction. The alleged act of parading the petitioner in public, if established, would amount to treating the accused as a convict without due process of law. Such conduct has been consistently deprecated by constitutional courts as being violative of human rights and constitutional guarantees," the court said.

It further noted that the explanation of the State was that "due to non-availability of official vehicle" the accused persons were taken on foot to the Court, and observed that the same "cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when production before the Court within stipulated time is a statutory requirement".

The court observed that while petitioner had made representations which did indicate that a grievance was raised before the authorities, however but "mere non action" on such representations would not automatically warrant issuance of mandamus for initiating disciplinary proceedings "unless a prima facie case of misconduct is established

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to establish, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the act of the police personnel amounted to a deliberate and malicious public parade so as to infringe his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the nature of allegations made and in order to ensure fairness, it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Raisen, to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner by conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations, if not already conducted," the court directed. 

The petition was filed seeking issuance of directions commanding the State to initiate action against concerned police officials for allegedly subjecting the petitioner and other co-accused to an illegal, arbitrary and humiliating public parade. 

The case arose from an accident that occured on November 14, 2018, wherein the petitioner's Bolero vehicle allegedly accidentally hit the railing of Rajshree Hotel. The owner of the hotel filed a complaint leading to registration of an FIR alleging obscenity (Section 294), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323), mischief causing damage (Section 427), house trespassing (Section 452) and criminal intimidation (Section 506B) of IPC. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he, along with other co-accused, voluntarily presented themselves before the police officials, who allegedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹2 lakh. The police officials further threatened the accused men, claiming that they would falsely implicate the entire family if gratification was not paid. 

The counsel for the petitioner further emphasised the incident of November 17, 2018, wherein police officers, respondents 3 to 8, who were posted at Bareli Police Station, forced the accused men to parade on foot from the police station to the court, covering a distance of 2.5 kms along public road and national highway, allegedly in the presence of media persons. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he had submitted a presentation before the competent authority seeking action against the erring police officer, but no action was taken. 

The counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was arrested on November 16 and produced before the magistrate on November 17. However, due to the non-availability of a vehicle, the police personnel had no option but to take the accused persons on foot. 

The court noted that the case pertains to Article 21, which provides for the fundamental right to live with dignity. The court reiterated that Article 21 not only protects life and personal liberty but also encompasses the right to live with human dignity. The bench held that any action of the State which results in humiliation or degradation ot public shaming would violate the constitutional mandate 

The court while passing the direction for preliminary enquiry, disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Sangram Singh Rajpoot v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-29793-2018

For Petitioner: Advocate Shikha Paliwal

For State: Advocate Deepak Sahu 

For Police Officers: Advocate Anmol Rawat

Click here to read/download the Order

The All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) has approached the Calcutta High Court seeking judicial intervention over alleged incidents of post-poll violence across West Bengal following the declaration of the 2026 Assembly election results.

Advocate Sirsanya Banerjee, who was a TMC candidate for the Uttarpara assembly constituency, mentioned the matter before a division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen.

It was alleged that several incidents of arson, vandalism and attacks targeting TMC workers and party offices have been reported from different parts of the State after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured victory in the 2026 Assembly elections.

Directions are being sought for the protection of affected party workers and a proper investigation into the alleged incidents of violence.

Reports indicate that incidents of vandalism and clashes were reported in areas including Kolkata, Howrah and several district towns, with both the BJP and TMC trading allegations over the violence.

TMC leaders have also alleged that several party workers were killed in the aftermath of the election results and demanded a court-monitored investigation into the incidents.

Notably, another PIL was also filed on alleged post-poll vandalism and bulldozer action at Kolkata's New Market after the BJP's victory.

The Calcutta High Court is expected to take up both matters shortly.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was recently seen cycling, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call for fuel conservation amid the rising global energy crisis linked to ongoing tensions between the US and Iran.

An Instagram reel posted by Free Press Journal captured the judge riding a bicycle and sharing his thoughts on the initiative. Justice Bansal said that his public cycling is aimed at raising awareness about using cycles for short commutes of 1-2 kms whenever possible. 

He stated that following PM's speech, urging fuel conservation, he should also cycle to the High Court from his residence. In the video, he stated; 

"Hon'ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji has appealed to save fuel among other things. Keeping it in mind, I felt I should cycle to the High Court and give a message to the common man to use a cycle to commute whenever possible for shorter distances of 1-2 kms". 

Justice Bansal also recounted that he cycles with the Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, emphasising that the choice is both practical and promotes a healthy, sustainable lifestyle.

He added, "I keep cycling with Chief Justice Sachdeva Ji sometimes around the city of Jabalpur. I don't think it's much work to cycle. Just because we are High Court judges doesn't mean we are special... I think everyone should cycle, people usually avoid it because of the hot weather, but everyone should cycle". 

Justice Bansal, in the short reel, also recalled days when the bicycle was the primary mode of transport for the majority of the population. 

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of nine advocates as judges of the Calcutta High Court.

In resolutions passed during its meetings held on May 11 and 12, 2026, the Collegium cleared the elevation of the following advocates:

1. Indranil Roy
2. Aryak Dutt
3. Atarup Banerjee
4. Sandip Kumar De
5. Partha Pratim Roy
6. Sudip Deb
7. Anuj Singh
8. Arjun Ray Mukherjee
9. Rishad Medora

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) suspending its Secretary General Kamlesh Mehta — described by the Court as an “illustrious veteran” of Indian table tennis.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the Federation violated basic principles of natural justice by acting without giving him any opportunity of hearing and thus appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari as an independent enquiry authority to examine the functioning of the TTFI and the conduct of its office bearers.

Mehta, a former Olympian who represented India at the Barcelona 1992 Olympics and won multiple Commonwealth Championship medals, had challenged the January 28, 2026 decision of TTFI's Executive Committee declaring him “persona non grata” and suspending him from the post of Secretary General pending an internal inquiry.

The dispute arose amid an internal conflict within the federation between Mehta and TTFI President Meghna Ahlawat over the convening of meetings, functioning of the federation, financial decisions and alleged procedural irregularities.

According to the Court, the Executive Committee passed the impugned resolution without issuing any notice to Mehta or giving him an opportunity to defend himself.

The Court held that principles of natural justice had to be read into Clause 11(d) of the TTFI Memorandum of Association, under which a person could be declared “persona non grata” and removed from office.

“It is a case concerning the complete absence of principles of natural justice, and the complete lack of an opportunity of hearing…it is not non-compliance with a particular facet of the principles of natural justice, that TTFI and Mr. Mehra have to justify, rather, it is the complete go-by with the said principles, that needs to be vindicated.,” the Court observed.

It further emphasised that suspension of a democratically elected office bearer defeats the right to represent the constituents who voted for him and simultaneously, a shadow is cast on the constituents' right to be represented.

“In such a scenario, it would be untenable for this Court to hold that principles of natural justice can be given a complete go by and a person can be, unilaterally, put under suspension,” the Court said.

It noted that the allegations exchanged between the federation's President and Secretary General raised concerns about whether the federation was functioning in the best interests of the sport, athletes and the country.

It observed that it is in the interest of sports in general to prevent the development of cliques and cabals in sports federations and bodies.

“Larger common good in the world of sport can be achieved by ensuring that the NSFs (National Sports Federations) follow the procedure prescribed by statutes, regulations and the declarations by Courts,” the Court said.

As such, stating that it could not “shut its eyes” to the allegations being made by the federation's highest office bearers against each other, the Court quashed the suspension order but directed that any future action against office bearers, including Mehta, would be subject to the inquiry to be conducted by Justice Krishna Murari.

Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Ms. Aahna Mehrotra, Mr. Kartikay Dutta, Mr. Shivansh Soni, Ms. Anukriti, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Rahul Mehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parth Goswami, Chaitnya Gossain, Ranjeet Pawar, Mr. Hanif Chimthanawala, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Parth Goswami and Mr. Ayush Yadav, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC, Mr. Akshit Mohan, GP, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh Gupta, Advocates for R-3. Ms. Aashita Khanna and Ms. Aanya Agarwal, Advocates for R-4.

Case title: Kamlesh Mehta v. TTFI

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1680/2026

Click here to read order

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea seeking directions on the Union Government and Prasar Bharti to ensure that FIFA World Cup 2026 is broadcasted in India through free-to-air public broadcasting platforms like Doordarshan and DD Sports.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav sought response of the Union Government through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as well as Prasar Bharti.

Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar appeared for the petitioner- Avdhesh Bairwa, and argued that denying access to the tournament would not only violate citizens' rights but also adversely affect promotion of football and sports culture in the country.

At the outset, the Court asked Gaggar to file a PIL on the issue and added that entertaining the plea would amount to exercising the PIL power.

Gaggar submitted that earlier, writ petitions used to be entertained for broadcasting matters and that it will not amount to an “out of zone consideration.”

Thereafter, the Court issued notice on the plea and asked the respondent authorities to obtain instructions. The matter is now listed on May 20.

The plea states that earlier, the tournament used to be broadcasted through Doordarshan, Ten Sports, ESPN Star sports, Sony Pictures Networks India, JioCinema but today, no broadcaster has acquired the broadcasting rights for the FIFA World Cup 2026 in India.

It submits that the tournament is classified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as a “sporting event of national importance” under the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and the notification dated 09.05.2022.

According to the petition, FIFA initially valued the India rights package at nearly USD 100 million, later reducing it to USD 35 million due to lack of market interest, but no final deal has been concluded.

It is Bairwa's case that such a situation could deprive millions of Indian viewers of access to one of the world's biggest sporting events.

Petitioner was represented by Sr. Adv. Vaibhav Gaggar through Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, with Advocates Ankit Konwar, Avdhesh Bairwa, Subhashni Kumari, Prateek Singh, Nishi Rathore, Nishi Kashyap, Abhishek Nair, Akash Kumar and Arpit Pandey

Title: AVDHESH BAIRWA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh, President, and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member, has held Air India Express guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying boarding to an IAS officer and his family despite their timely arrival at the boarding gate. The Commission observed that airlines cannot arbitrarily classify passengers as “No Show” passengers when they have completed check-in formalities and reached the boarding gate before the stipulated closure time.

Facts

The complainant, an Indian Administrative Service officer, along with his wife and minor son, had travelled to Dubai for a vacation between June 9 and June 17, 2024. The family booked return tickets from Dubai to Amritsar on Air India Express flight IX-192 through a travel agent by paying ₹18,420 per passenger.

According to the complaint, the family reached Dubai International Airport around two and a half hours before the scheduled departure at 08:50 AM. They completed all check-in formalities, checked in their baggage and received boarding passes indicating that the boarding gates would close at 08:25 AM. The complainants contended that they reached the boarding gate before the stipulated closure time, yet the airline's ground staff refused to permit them to board, claiming that boarding had already been completed, even though other passengers were allegedly still being allowed to board the aircraft.

The complainants stated that they were stranded at the airport and were compelled to purchase alternative tickets to India via Jaipur at an additional cost of ₹1,26,771. It was further claimed that the delayed arrival caused professional inconvenience to the first complainant, who could not resume his official duties on time. Aggrieved by the airline's conduct, the complainants approached the Consumer Commission seeking compensation and reimbursement of expenses.

Contentions of the Parties

Air India Express argued that the complainants had suppressed material facts and failed to report at the boarding gate within the prescribed timeline. According to the airline, the boarding gates had already been closed and the complainants were rightly treated as “No Show” passengers. The airline further relied upon its boarding records to contend that the last passenger had boarded before the complainants arrived at the gate.

The travel agent, Vidhata Consultancy, failed to appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte by the Commission.

Observations & Decision

The Commission observed that the documentary evidence placed on record, including the boarding passes and travel invoices, clearly established that the complainants had completed the required airport formalities and reached the boarding area. It held that the airline failed to provide any plausible justification for denying boarding to the complainants despite their timely presence at the gate.

The Commission further noted that because of the airline's conduct, the complainants were forced to incur substantial additional expenditure for alternative travel arrangements. It also took note of the fact that the original ticket amount paid for the Dubai-Amritsar journey had not been refunded by the airline.

Holding that the airline's conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission concluded that the complainants had successfully proved negligence on the part of the airline.

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay ₹1,26,771 to the complainants towards reimbursement of alternative travel expenses, subject to deduction of ₹55,260 if the said amount had already been refunded prior to disposal of the complaint, along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till realization. The Commission also awarded ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.

Case Title: Veerendra Kumar Meena & Ors. v. Air India Express Limited & Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/44/CC/345/2024 / CC/345/2024

Advocates for the Complainants: Sh. Sahil Jain and Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates

Advocate for Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order

The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday ( May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test.  

For context, the trust vote is due to take place soon after TVK came to power electing actor Vijay as the Chief Minister of the State. Vijay took oath as the CM on Sunday. 

The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim order in a plea filed by former Minister R Periakaruppan alleging that one postal vote of No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai District, (from where he contested as DMK candidate), which was in his favour, had been wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency of Tiruppattur District.

The bench however made it clear that the order "should not be treated as one setting aside his winning or one confirming it". It said that a "strong prima facie case" has been made out by Periakaruppan. 

" We are fully satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out for granting interim directions," the court said. 

The court has further directed the Election Commission of India to preserve video footage and postal vote. 

Periakaruppan had approached the court seeking directions to the Chief Election Officer, Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to Government (Elections) Department, District Election Officer cum Collector (Sivagangai District), Returning Officer (No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency), Returning Officer (No. 50 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency) to secure the postal ballots that were wrongly sent to No. 50 constituency instead of No. 185 constituency and to account them in No 185 constituency.

Periakaruppan had also sought an interim injunction to restrain TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in any legislative process in the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly pending disposal of the writ petition. He had also sought direction to the Returning Officer for No 185 constituency to furnish the video footage of the mandatory reverification process in accordance with Clause 19.10.3 of the Handbook for the Returning Officer, 2023.

During a special hearing on Sunday (10th May), senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the former Minister, argued that the bar under Article 329 of the Constitution would not apply to the present case. He had argued that the present case was an extraordinary situation where one postal vote was sent to a different constituency with the same name. He had argued that the prayer sought could not have been granted by way of an Election petition and only the court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could order the transfer of the postal vote and recounting.

To this, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the winning TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi, submitted that the present petition was a frivolous, vexatious, non-existent case. He argued that through clever drafting, Periakaruppan was indirectly seeking a recount, which could be done only by way of an election petition.

The court had also asked the Election Commission of India to respond to the plea, explaining what action it had taken on an email representation made by Periakaruppan on May 5th.

Submitting its reply on Monday (11th May), the ECI submitted that Periakaruppan had not produced any materials to substantiate his claim. Senior Advocate G Rajapolana, appearing for the ECI, told the court that once the election results are declared, the ECI had no powers and any question thereafter will have to be decided by way of an election petition.

ECI also questioned the maintainability of the plea and argued that as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, an election cannot be called into question by the court except by way of an election petition. The ECI further submitted that only those postal votes, which are received by the authorities by the time specified can be counted on the particular date and there was no provision under law which permitted the transfer of postal vote wrongly sent to a constituency instead of another. The ECI also submitted that Periakaruppan's argument was highly improbable since there were sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent such a situation.

To this, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for the former Minister, argued that even in its counter affidavit, the ECI had not refuted the allegation that the postal vote was sent to the wrong constituency. 

Report on the judgment - Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Silent When Single Disputed Vote May Decide Fate Of Government: Madras High Court

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel, and Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Mr. Aswin Prasanna and Mr. S. Agilesh Kumar.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. Rajagopalan, for Mr. Tarun Rao Kallakuru, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Mr. K.P.Anantha Krishnan, and Mr. Pranjal Agarwal

Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206

Case No: WP 19287 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a husband cannot deny interim maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely by levelling allegations of adultery, without such claims being substantiated by cogent and legally admissible evidence.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said,

"matrimonial litigation cannot be permitted to become a forum for character assassination so as to economically suffocate a spouse during pendency of proceedings. Mere allegations, unless supported by cogent prima facie material of sterling quality, cannot by themselves disentitle a wife from claiming interim maintenance."

The Court was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Family Court, whereby interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month was awarded to the wife and ₹1,000 per month to the minor son from the date of filing of the petition.

At the outset, the petitioner-husband did not dispute the marital relationship or the maintenance granted to the child, but contended that the wife was disentitled to maintenance on account of alleged adulterous conduct. In support, reliance was placed on certain photographs showing the wife with another man.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent- wife submitted that the photographs were being selectively interpreted and did not establish any adulterous relationship, even prima facie. It was argued that bald and unsubstantiated allegations cannot be used to deny sustenance to a legally wedded wife at the interim stage.

Rejecting the husband's contention, the High Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are social welfare measures intended to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified standard of living for dependent spouses and children. The Court reiterated that “maintenance” is not charity but a legal right flowing from a continuing obligation.

Relying on settled Supreme Court cases, the Court observed that such provisions must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of women and children, consistent with their constitutional underpinning under Articles 15(3) and 39.

Importantly, the Court held that at the stage of interim maintenance, it is neither appropriate nor permissible to conduct a “mini trial” on disputed allegations such as adultery, which require detailed evidence and adjudication during trial.

On facts, the Court found that the photographs relied upon by the husband did not depict any conduct conclusively pointing towards an illicit relationship. It observed that mere images of a woman in the company of another person, including at social occasions or with her child, cannot give rise to a presumption of adultery.

“Allegations of adultery are serious in nature and carry lasting civil and social consequences. Such allegations cannot be casually inferred on the basis of conjectures or isolated material capable of multiple interpretations,” the Court observed.

The Court further cautioned that matrimonial litigation should not become a tool for character assassination or for economically suffocating a spouse during the pendency of proceedings.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order, and noting that the amount awarded was modest and justified, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varinder Dhiman, Advocate for the respondents.