Author: Anjali Deshmukh

News summary The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2025 INSC 1371), has set aside…

Judgment dated 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India resolved a pivotal question concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts in appointing arbitrators for disputes explicitly…

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.

Courts are becoming key players in climate action, with nearly 3,000 cases filed worldwide by mid-2025. Judicial intervention addresses gaps left by weak political enforcement, as seen in landmark cases like Urgenda and Lliuya. Using human rights and tort law, courts hold governments and companies accountable without making policy. Critics’ concerns about overreach are countered by courts’ reliance on expert evidence. Strengthening climate litigation requires specialized climate courts, clear legal targets, and corporate risk integration. The article argues that judicial oversight is essential to turn climate promises into real action.

Euthanasia laws vary worldwide, with some countries allowing active euthanasia or assisted suicide under strict rules, while others permit only withdrawal of life support. Europe, Canada, and parts of the U.S. have expanded legal access, often with strong safeguards. In India, courts have led the way: the 2011 Aruna Shanbaug case allowed passive euthanasia, and the 2018 Common Cause ruling recognized the right to die with dignity and living wills. In 2023, procedures were simplified. Experts suggest India should pass clear legislation to regulate end-of-life care, balancing autonomy, ethics, and safeguards.

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 Bombay High Court, in Alka Shrirang Chavan v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale, reaffirmed the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that any property transfer made while a related suit is pending remains subject to the court’s final decree. The case involved subsequent purchasers resisting a decree for specific performance, but the Court ruled they were bound by the outcome since their purchase was pendente lite. The judgment underscores that buyers must conduct due diligence, as private transfers cannot override judicial authority.