Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 93 to 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 120

Nominal Index

• Satpal Gandhi v. Girdharilal Agrawal & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 93
• Mohan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 94
• Ashish Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 95
• Anupam Devnath v. Inspector General, Kendriya Audhogik Suraksha Bal & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 96
• M/s. Dynami Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 97
• Aryan Agrawal v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 98
• State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Lakhan Lal Jaiswal 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 99
• Narendra Nayan Shashtri @ Narendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 100
• Murlidhar Bagh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 101
• C.L. Sandilya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 102
• Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 103
• Anamika Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 104
• Jitesh Anand @ Jitu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 105
• Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 106
• Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 107
• Jeevan Kishor Dhruv v CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 108
• Monali Baghmare & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 109
• Sharda Bai Chandrakar v Tejram Chandrakar 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 110
• Xyz Nill v. State of Chhattisgarh 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 111
• Devendra Khanna & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 112
• Abhinandan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 113
• Shri Pranab Kalita & Anr. v/s State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 114
• Rashi Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 115
• Digree Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 116
• Sheena David v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 117
• Raghav Lahre v. Bharat Lahre 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 118
• Manoj Kurre & Ors. v. Smt. Sunita Kurre & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 119
• Dr. Rahul Agrawal & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 120

Courts Can't Adjourn All Cases For Entire Day On Bar Association's Condolence Reference: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Satpal Gandhi v. Girdharilal Agrawal & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 93

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that wholesale adjournment of all matters solely on the basis of a condolence reference moved by a Bar Association is impermissible and adversely affects the administration of justice. The Court observed that while paying homage to a departed member of the Bar or Bench is a matter of institutional propriety, such ceremonial observances should not ordinarily result in suspension of judicial work for the entire day.

Remission Plea Can't Be Rejected By Mechanically Relying On DM, SP's Adverse Opinions: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Mohan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 94

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an application for remission or premature release cannot be rejected solely on the basis of mechanical adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police while ignoring favourable recommendations of the Presiding Judge and Jail Superintendent. The Court observed that the appropriate Government is required to independently assess all relevant factors governing remission, including the prisoner's conduct, reformation and likelihood of reoffending, rather than mechanically accepting adverse administrative reports.

Foreigners Can't Invoke Article 226 To Protect Unauthorized Possession Of Government Land: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Ashish Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 95

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that foreigners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect unauthorized possession of Government land, reiterating that the fundamental rights available to foreigners are confined to Article 21. The Court further observed that where Government land has been lawfully allotted for a public purpose, a claim based merely on long possession without any lawful title or enforceable right cannot prevail over public interest.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Pay Cut Imposed On CISF Constable For Facebook Posts Against Indian Army, Paramilitary Forces

Case Title: Anupam Devnath v. Inspector General, Kendriya Audhogik Suraksha Bal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 96

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the penalty of reduction of pay imposed on a CISF Constable for posting objectionable content against the Indian Army and para-military forces on Facebook, holding that the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct. The Court further observed that in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution, it cannot interfere unless the enquiry suffers from procedural illegality or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 

Show-Cause Notice Mandatory For Blacklisting Contractor; Arbitration Clause No Bar To Writ Petition Against Debarment: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Dynami Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 97

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a contractor cannot be blacklisted without being served a specific show-cause notice expressly proposing such action. The Court further observed that the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction where the challenge is directed against arbitrary administrative action or violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in relation to blacklisting.

Allegations On Tampering Of NEET OMR Sheet 'Serious', Cannot Be Accepted Merely On Candidate's Suspicion: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Aryan Agrawal v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 98

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that allegations of tampering with a NEET candidate's OMR sheet are serious and cannot be accepted merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or subjective belief in the absence of substantive evidence. The Court further observed that a candidate cannot bypass the examining authority's grievance redressal mechanism and directly invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where no material is placed to show that the prescribed remedy was unavailable or ineffective.

Prison Guard's Removal Can't Be Upheld Based On Unverified Video Of Meeting Under-Trial's Family While Escorting Him: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Lakhan Lal Jaiswal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 99

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that findings recorded in a departmental enquiry cannot be sustained where they are founded on a social media video whose source, authenticity and manner of proof have not been established. The Court observed that where findings are based on no evidence or on material which has not been legally proved, interference in exercise of judicial review is not only permissible but necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Self-Styled Godman Accused Of Inducing Doctor To Pay ₹25 Lakh For 'Divine Rituals'

Case Title: Narendra Nayan Shashtri @ Narendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 100

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a person claiming to be a spiritual practitioner who was accused of inducing the complainant to give over ₹25 lakh by representing that he possessed divine and spiritual powers capable of resolving the complainant's family difficulties through religious rituals. The Court further observed that its inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation merely because the accused disputes the allegations levelled against him.

Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail To Husband Accused Of Driving Pregnant Wife To Suicide Over Dowry Demand

Case Title: Murlidhar Bagh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 101

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant regular bail to a husband accused of continuously subjecting his wife to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demand, leading to her suicide. The Court observed that at the stage of considering a bail application, issues such as delay in registration of the FIR and alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively examined.

Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Departmental Exam Result, Says Syllabus Can't Be Changed Through Admit Cards Issued Days Before Exam

Case Title: C.L. Sandilya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 102

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that introducing a new subject in a departmental examination only through admit cards issued a few days before, or even hours before, the examination cannot be treated as a valid or adequate prior notification of the syllabus. The Court further observed that if the omission of a subject from the published syllabus was due to a clerical or typographical error, the authorities were required to rectify the mistake by granting the petitioners adequate notice and sufficient time to prepare for the newly introduced subject, rather than merely mentioning it in the admit cards issued immediately before the examination.

Chhattisgarh High Court Modifies Judgment In RTI Case, Substitutes 'Bombarded' & Habitual Information Seeker With Neutral Expressions

Case Title: Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 103

The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified its earlier judgment by substituting the expressions "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" with the more neutral expressions "regular information seeker" and "placed on the PIO". The Court observed that although the earlier expressions were not intended to create an adverse impression and were merely observations, substituting them would maintain neutrality without affecting the substance of the judgment.

Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash SC/ST Act Case Against Woman Over Instagram Remarks On Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Case Title: Anamika Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 104

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of posting objectionable remarks against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Instagram, holding that the allegations in the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The Court further held that disputed questions relating to the alleged remarks, electronic evidence and the investigation cannot be examined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Keeping Person In Police Custody Under Guise Of 'Voluntary Cooperation' Violates Article 22: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Jitesh Anand @ Jitu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 105

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that investigating agencies cannot keep a person in their custody under the guise of "voluntary cooperation" to circumvent the constitutional safeguards against arrest, observing that such a course would violate Article 22 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that a mere endorsement on a notice stating that a person is voluntarily accompanying the police, particularly when made while the person is already under police control, is insufficient to establish genuine consent.

Excess Salary Paid Due To Wrong Pay Fixation Can't Be Recovered From Class-III & IV Employees Despite Undertaking: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 106

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that recovery of excess payment from Class-III and Class-IV employees is impermissible in law even if such employees have submitted an undertaking or consent letter agreeing to the recovery. The Court observed that the petitioner's contention that he had submitted the consent letter and deposited the amount under pressure and threat that his retiral dues would not be released could not be overlooked.

Telephone Interception Cannot Be Retrospectively Validated By MHA Confirmation Order: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 107

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a confirmation order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Telecommunications (Procedure and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024 is only confirmatory in nature and cannot retrospectively validate or enlarge the scope of an interception authorisation. The Court observed that Telephone interception is an exception to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the statutory conditions authorising such intrusion must receive strict construction.

'Ruining Career Of Aspirants More Heinous Than Murder': Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail To Ex-CGPSC Secretary In Exam Paper Leak Case

Case: Jeevan Kishor Dhruv v CBI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 108

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the bail plea of former Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) Jeevan Kishor Dhruv, observing that prima facie material indicated his involvement in a conspiracy to leak confidential question papers to allegedly benefit his son who was subsequently selected as Deputy Collector. Emphasising the seriousness of examination paper leaks, the Court observed that a person facilitating leakage of question papers in competitive examinations “plays with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants, who are 'burning the midnight oil' to prepare for competitive exams.”

Police Cannot Register FIR On Same Allegations If They Initially Treated Complaint As 'Non-Cognizable': Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Monali Baghmare & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 109

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where the police initially treated a complaint as a non-cognizable dispute, registering an FIR on the very same allegations without any fresh material indicates that the dispute has been given a criminal colour. The Court further observed that non-fulfilment of a promise or breach of contractual terms cannot attract criminal liability in the absence of fraudulent intention.

Homemaker's Financial Difficulties Not 'Sufficient Cause' To Condone Delay: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Sharda Bai Chandrakar v Tejram Chandrakar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 110

Dismissing an application seeking condonation of 224 days of delay, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the explanation offered, that the applicant is a homemaker of advanced age and is dependent upon her children who are facing financial and medical difficulties, is insufficient cause to condone delay. The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was whether 224 days of delay deserved to be condoned.

No Action Against Consensual Sex Worker: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Immoral Trafficking Case Against Sex Worker

Case Title: Xyz Nill v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 111

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. The Court observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings based on such a basis would amount to subjecting a woman to the very harassment against which the Supreme Court had issued specific directions. 

Son's Senior Citizen Status Does Not Give Him Right To Occupy House Against Wishes Of 93-Year-Old Mother': Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Devendra Khanna & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 112

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the fact that the occupants themselves are senior citizens does not confer upon them an overriding or indefeasible right to continue in occupation of premises against the wishes of another senior citizen. The Court observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is intended to protect senior citizens from neglect, abuse and harassment, and pendency of proceedings concerning land title is not an embargo upon the exercise of protective jurisdiction.

Carriage Permit Cannot Be Denied To Individual Over Family Member's Pending Tax Dues: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Abhinandan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 113

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that when the Motor Vehicles Act contains no statutory prohibition against granting a carriage permit to an individual, such permit cannot be denied on the ground that a family member has pending tax dues with any RTO. The Court observed that unless supported by a statutory embargo constituting a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, a default committed by one family member cannot lead to penalization or debarment of another.

Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes FIR Against Two Booked For Sharing Online Cartoon On Governor After Unconditionally Apologizing

Case title: Shri Pranab Kalita & Anr. v/s State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 114

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently quashed an FIR against two men booked for sharing a Facebook cartoon-styled post on the Governor of the State, after noting that the petitioners had filed an unconditional apology and had undertaken to remove the post as well as never repeat such conduct. The court also noted that the proposed settlement was not founded merely upon a private compromise between the petitioners and respondent No.2 complainant. It said that the matter has been considered at the governmental level and the State Government itself has conveyed its consent to the settlement, subject to compliance with the conditions incorporated in its earlier communication.

Non-Disclosure Of Marital Status Without Deception Or Dishonest Inducement Not Cheating U/S 420 IPC: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Rashi Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 115

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that mere allegations of non-disclosure of a material fact relating to matrimonial status, without the necessary ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement, do not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC. The Court observed that where the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 

State Women Commission Cannot Issue Binding Directions Affecting Service Conditions Of Employee: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Digree Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 116

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the State Women Commission, though empowered to receive complaints concerning deprivation of the rights of women, cannot issue binding directions affecting the service conditions of an employee. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Commission is recommendatory and facilitative in nature and cannot be enlarged to confer upon it a power which has not been vested in it by the statute.

Denying Compassionate Appointment To Married Daughters While Granting It To Married Sons Is Unconstitutional: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Sheena David v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 117

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that denial of compassionate appointment to married daughters solely on the ground of their marital status, when married sons have been granted such appointment under the same Scheme, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the issue of dependency is essentially one of fact and cannot be concluded merely by drawing a presumption from the marital status.

Maintenance For Autistic Child Cannot Automatically Stop At 18 Yrs: Must Continue Till Child Is Capable To Earn': Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Raghav Lahre v. Bharat Lahre

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 118

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that mere attainment of majority cannot, by itself, result in automatic cessation of the right to receive maintenance in the case of a child suffering from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and unable to maintain himself. The Court observed that the relevant consideration would be whether, after attaining majority, such person is capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood.

Acquittal Under Section 498A IPC Does Not Bar Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Manoj Kurre & Ors. v. Smt. Sunita Kurre & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 119

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that Section 498A IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 operate in different fields and serve distinct objects. The Court observed that acquittal under Section 498A IPC does not prohibit or restrict a complainant from filing a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds ED's ₹110 Crore Provisional Attachment Of Goa's Westin Hotel In Alleged Liquor Scam Cash Trail

Case Title: Dr. Rahul Agrawal & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 120

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to interfere with the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) provisional attachment of Hotel Westin, Goa, to the extent of ₹110 crore. While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that it has not taken a final adjudication on the allegations concerned, and such question were required to be examined through the statutory adjudicatory mechanism in accordance with the law.