The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a suo motu PIL, strongly criticized police for their lenient response to a viral incident where a businessman’s son held a birthday celebration on a Raipur highway, blocking traffic. Offenders were fined only ₹2,000, which the court called ineffective for the wealthy. Citing provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Motor Vehicles Act, and National Highways Act, the court stressed that such road stunts endanger public safety and must be addressed with strict, uniform enforcement, regardless of social status, to prevent lawlessness.

The Allahabad High Court held that neglect or abuse of elderly parents amounts to a violation of their Article 21 right to live with dignity. In a case involving a land compensation dispute, an elderly father alleged mental and physical abuse by his sons after receiving compensation. The sons later apologized. The Court, noting the father’s ownership, ordered the full release of funds to him and warned the sons against future interference. Citing the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Bench condemned elder abuse as both a moral failure and a constitutional breach.

The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to a Pune schoolteacher accused of sharing inflammatory WhatsApp content, including a burning national flag and derogatory remarks about the Prime Minister. Justice R.N. Laddha held that such acts could disturb public order and communal harmony, warranting custodial investigation. Citing relevant BNS provisions and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, the court stressed that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions. It also emphasized teachers’ heightened responsibility as role models, noting that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy not justified in this case.

The Calcutta High Court commuted the death sentences of two men convicted of raping and murdering a five-year-old girl to life imprisonment without remission for 60 years. While confirming their guilt, the Court applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine and found mitigating factors like socio-economic background and post-custody conduct. Citing constitutional principles and Article 21, the Court held that life imprisonment is the rule, death the exception. By imposing a fixed non-remittable term, it balanced retribution with human rights, ensuring severe punishment while avoiding capital execution—a “third way” between life and death sentences.

The Madras High Court condemned the seven-year closure of the Arulmighu Mariamman Temple in Karur, calling it a “dereliction of constitutional duty.” The temple had been shut due to caste tensions, denying Scheduled Caste devotees access. Justice B. Pugalendhi ruled that citing law and order concerns cannot justify violating Articles 14 and 25, which guarantee equality and religious freedom. The court criticized police and district officials for failing to find constitutional solutions and directed the HR&CE Department to act under Section 64 to ensure fair access. It warned that caste-based denial of entry would invite strict legal action.

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against three men accused of distributing Islamic pamphlets near a temple, ruling that it did not amount to a criminal offence. Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complainant had no legal standing under Section 4 of the state’s anti-conversion law and that no elements of forced or fraudulent conversion under Section 3 were met. The court also found no evidence of incitement under BNS provisions. It reaffirmed Article 25 rights, stating that peacefully sharing religious views is protected, provided there is no unlawful conversion attempt.