Today’s briefing is led by a Supreme Court ruling that discourages litigants from choosing a distant High Court simply because it has jurisdiction. We also look at an Allahabad High Court order making the Uttar Pradesh government pay for an unlawful vehicle confiscation, two family law rulings on what does and does not amount to cruelty, a disability rights decision on reasonable accommodation in recruitment, a Gauhati High Court ruling on the limits of PAN and voter ID cards as proof of citizenship, and a Madras High Court direction on alleged fraud in library book purchases.
Supreme Court: Having Jurisdiction Is No Licence to Forum Shop
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan allowed a transfer petition in Sai Maghalakshmi Traders v. M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and moved a commercial suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court. The defendants do business in Chennai, while the plaintiffs are based near Bengaluru, yet the suit had been filed in Delhi.
What the court held: Several High Courts may have territorial jurisdiction, particularly in intellectual property disputes, but that alone does not justify forum shopping. The Bench said “the mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in various courts” cannot by itself excuse it. It rejected the notion that one High Court is better suited to a type of dispute, saying this creates a hierarchy among High Courts that should not exist, and observed that the court where the parties and facts are located is usually best placed to decide the case. The transfer was ordered in the interests of justice and quicker disposal.
What it means for you: Businesses that file or face trademark, copyright or other commercial suits should expect courts to look closely at why a particular forum was chosen. If you are sued in a far-off court with little real connection to the dispute, a transfer request may be worth considering. Plaintiffs, in turn, should be ready to justify their choice of court on genuine connecting factors, not perceived advantage. Related practice area: Intellectual Property Rights.
Allahabad High Court: UP Government to Pay for Unlawful Vehicle Confiscation
In Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Sandeep Jain set aside orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner confiscating a commercial goods vehicle under Section 5-A of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Police in Mirzapur had seized the vehicle in September 2023 on suspicion that two bullocks were being taken out of the state for slaughter.
What the court held: There was no statement, document or independent witness showing that the animals were headed outside Uttar Pradesh, and interception in a border district was not enough. The finding of cruel transport also failed because the bullocks were never examined by a veterinarian. Calling the orders patently illegal and noting that the vehicle was the owner’s livelihood under Article 21, the court directed the State to pay Rs 40,000 per month from the date of seizure until release, plus Rs 25,000 for harassment, within one month, with 8% interest on delay. The vehicle is to be released, and the State may recover the amount from the officers responsible after an inquiry.
What it means for you: Transporters and vehicle owners in Uttar Pradesh should note that confiscation under the cattle protection law must rest on actual evidence, not suspicion. If your vehicle has been seized, keep loan, permit and income records, since they help show financial loss. The ruling also signals that officials may personally bear the cost of orders passed without applying their mind. Related practice area: High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Jharkhand High Court: Mental Illness Alone Is Not a Ground for Divorce
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Akhil Kumar set aside an ex-parte divorce decree granted by the Family Court at Koderma in January 2026. The husband had sought divorce for cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming his wife refused prescribed medication.
What the court held: Mental illness cannot, by itself, be used to stigmatise a spouse or end a marriage, and refusing or being unable to take treatment is not automatically cruelty. Courts must look at medical evidence, the surrounding circumstances and the real effect on the marriage. Here, the husband had not examined the treating doctor or produced any medical witness, so his testimony alone was not enough.
What it means for you: A spouse facing a divorce petition built on a health condition can insist on proper medical proof. Anyone seeking divorce on such grounds should be prepared to bring expert evidence, not just personal accounts. The ruling also shows that an ex-parte decree can be overturned on appeal if the evidence was thin. Related practice area: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Telangana High Court: Divorce Grounds Must Be Pleaded and Proved
A Division Bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice K Sujana dismissed a husband’s appeal against a 2015 order of the Family Court at Nizamabad refusing him divorce. He had petitioned only on the ground of cruelty but also alleged desertion and adultery in the course of the case.
What the court held: Since the petition was based only on cruelty, the husband could not seek relief on desertion or adultery, and he had not even made the alleged partner a party. His allegations of cruelty were unsupported by cogent evidence, and testimony from the couple’s elder son went against him. The court found the Family Court’s order well reasoned.
What it means for you: In matrimonial cases, the grounds you plead at the start largely decide what you can argue later. Each ground under the Hindu Marriage Act needs specific pleading and supporting evidence, and bare allegations rarely succeed. This is relevant for NRI spouses too, where claims about money sent from abroad must be backed by clear records. Related practice area: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Jharkhand High Court: Recruitment Rules Cannot Override Disability Rights
In Juthika Pal v. State of Jharkhand, Justice Deepak Roshan considered the case of a candidate with a locomotor disability who applied for a Chowkidar post in Dumka district under the PwD quota. She cleared the written test but finished the running test three seconds over the 10-minute limit, having been given no extra time, and was left off the merit list.
What the court held: The absence of any reasonable accommodation provision in recruitment rules or a state notification cannot override rights under Sections 20 and 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The State has a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments, and rules cannot go beyond what Parliament has enacted. Noting that reserved posts were still vacant, the court directed her appointment.
What it means for you: Candidates with disabilities can ask for reasonable accommodation in physical and other tests even where the advertisement is silent. Government employers and recruiting bodies should review selection criteria so that they do not exclude PwD candidates through rigid standards. Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law.
Gauhati High Court: PAN and Voter ID Do Not Prove Citizenship
A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund dismissed a petition in Kulchan Begum v. Union of India challenging a Foreigners Tribunal opinion. The petitioner claimed birth in Assam in 1977 and sought to link herself to a father and grandparents said to be on old electoral rolls.
What the court held: PAN cards and voter ID cards issued on self-application, without formal verification, are not proof of citizenship unless the underlying records are proved. The petitioner had failed to establish her relationship with the persons she relied on or their continuous residence as required under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Her plea that earlier counsel gave wrong advice was treated as an afterthought, and her interim bail was revoked.
What it means for you: Identity documents are not the same as proof of citizenship or lineage. Families who may need to establish their status, or inheritance and succession links, should preserve old land records, school certificates, birth records and electoral rolls that connect generations. Related practice area: High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Madras High Court Orders FIR Over Alleged Library Book Fraud
At the Madurai Bench, Justice GR Swaminathan, hearing Ramasubbu v. Gopal, dealt with alleged fraudulent procurement of books for public libraries across Tamil Nadu, including books described as fake and AI-generated.
What the court directed: The Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was told to register an FIR immediately. The court ordered that such books be removed from libraries and that bank accounts of the publisher concerned, its proprietor and others involved be frozen.
What it means for you: Public procurement of content is now being examined for AI-generated material passed off as genuine work. Publishers and suppliers dealing with government bodies should keep clear records of authorship and originality, as courts are willing to order freezing of accounts where fraud is alleged. Related practice area: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you or your business, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.