The Delhi High Court has acquitted Rahul Bhupinder Verma, previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that allegations of “physical relations” without clear details or supporting evidence cannot substantiate charges of rape or penetrative sexual assault. The court noted that terms like “physical relations” and “sambandh” must be explicitly defined to meet the legal standards. It further observed delays in filing the FIR, lack of medical or forensic proof, and absence of foundational facts for applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO.

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Asha Bhosle against AI platforms and online sellers for cloning her voice and misusing her image without consent. The Court held this violated her personality and publicity rights and her moral rights under Section 38B of the Copyright Act. Defendants were restrained from using her identity and ordered to remove infringing content. Relying on constitutional privacy rights, moral rights, and passing off principles, the Court protected her control over her persona, reflecting a growing legal response to AI-based misuse of celebrity identities.

Madras High Court formed a Special Investigation Team led by IG Asra Garg to probe the Karur stampede at actor-politician Vijay’s TVK rally on Sept 27 that killed 41 people. The court faulted TVK’s leadership for poor planning and lack of remorse, ordered Karur police to hand over records, and dismissed CBI probe petitions. Tamil Nadu will not allow highway rallies until SOPs are set; essential facilities and crowd-management measures must be provided. Multiple FIRs have been filed and compensation was announced for victims’ families.

What Is the Main Legal Issue Addressed in This Case? The Karnataka High Court’s ruling…

News summary The Karnataka High Court dismissed X Corp’s petition challenging the Union government’s Sahyog…

The Rajasthan High Court, in Kamlesh Mandoliya v. Vikas Divyakirti, stayed defamation proceedings against Dr. Vikas Divyakirti over alleged derogatory remarks about the judiciary in a viral lecture video. The Ajmer court had summoned him under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for criminal defamation, rejecting his free speech defense. However, Justice Sameer Jain observed that the comments were made in an academic context and fell within Article 19(1)(a) protections. The High Court halted the trial court’s actions pending further hearing, highlighting the balance between free expression and protecting judicial reputation in the digital era.