Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 28, 2025, To August 3, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112Nominal Index:Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh Univeristy & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110 Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112Printed Validity On Caste Certificate Is Insignificant If It Certifies Holder's OBC Status For Specific Financial Year: HP High Court Case Name: Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the printed validity of a period at the top of an OBC certificate becomes irrelevant if the certificate clearly certifies the applicant's OBC status for a specific financial year.Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “It is the fact certified in the certificate that is material. If that certification is about status as OBC for a specific period and if the certification regarding the period of OBC status differs from a cyclostyled period, casually mentioned at the top of the certificate, the actual certificate with respect to period of OBC status will take precedence”.Caste Assigned At Birth Doesn't Change Due To Marriage: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v/s SarojioniCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that caste is assigned at the time of birth and does not change upon marrying a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.It clarified that such a marriage does not preclude the commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held: “Therefore, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.”'Took Admission In 3-Yr LLB Course Without Completing Graduation': HP High Court Denies Student's Plea For Enrolment As AdvocateCase Name: Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh University & Others.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that admission to a three-year LLB course without completion of graduation violates the Legal Education Rules, 2008, and the candidate is ineligible for enrolment as an advocate.Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma said: “In this scenario, once appellant-petitioner had secured admission to the Three Year Law Course (in June 2014) without possessing the essential qualification of Graduation-Bachelor's Degree (which was passed on 27.07.2015). Thus, once for want of Graduation, the admission of the appellant-writ petitioner to LLB Course was bad (being ineligible) therefore, neither any locus nor any right can be said to have accrued to the appellant, an ineligible incumbent, so as to seek enrolment as an advocate, dehors the Rules”NDPS Act | Not Permissible To Detain Person On Presumption That Blood Sample May Indicate Presence Of Heroin: HP High Court Grants BailCase Name: Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be kept in custody merely on the assumption that the blood sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory might reveal traces of heroin or that some incriminating substance would be found.Denying the State's submission that blood samples sent by the police to forensics were likely to indicate the presence of heroin, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked: “A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified.”HP Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner Can't Interfere With Order Set Aside By District Collector Without Declaring It Illegal: High CourtCase Name: Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and non-existent material and by interfering with the Collector's decision without declaring any legal infirmity or perversity.Setting aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that “The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has exceeded his...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 28, 2025, To August 3, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags