The Delhi High Court, in its ruling on Arjun Patil v. Union of India & Ors., clarified two key aspects concerning foreign exchange law. It held that Indian currency involved in unauthorized foreign exchange dealings could be confiscated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court also emphasized that appeals to the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), are restricted solely to questions of law and do not extend to factual disputes. The judgment delineates the boundary between legal and factual considerations in foreign exchange enforcement cases.

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 Supreme Court has ruled that a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection in the country, even without a permanent office or physical presence. Deciding in Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2025 INSC 1247), the Court restored Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relief to the company and overturned the Uttarakhand High Court’s restrictive stance. It clarified that a “permanent establishment” applies under tax treaties, not domestic law, and directed reassessments accordingly. The judgment emphasizes that bids and correspondence can demonstrate ongoing business activity in India.

The Supreme Court in Zoharbee & Anr v. Imam Khan (2025 INSC 1245) ruled that a Muslim widow without children is entitled to one-fourth of her deceased husband’s estate under Mohammedan law. The Court rejected her claim for a larger share, holding that property under an unexecuted “agreement to sell” remains part of the estate until a registered sale deed is executed. Referring to Qur’an 4:12 and Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, the bench explained inheritance priorities and cautioned that inaccurate translations of trial court judgments may mislead appellate courts and affect outcomes.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that couples who created and froze embryos before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 took effect on January 25, 2022, have the right to proceed with surrogacy despite later age restrictions. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act does not apply retrospectively. Justice Viswanathan’s concurring opinion stated that fertilisation and freezing mark the point where reproductive rights crystallise, protected under Article 21. The Court allowed eligible couples to continue their surrogacy process, distinguishing pre-Act actions from future regulations.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.