The weekend brought a cluster of significant High Court rulings that touch everyday life and business. The Karnataka High Court drew a firm line around the Enforcement Directorate’s powers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court settled when age limits for IVF apply, and the Bombay High Court set aside a Customs order that relied on judgments nobody could find. We also cover rulings on how magistrates take cognizance, protection for transgender women under the new criminal code, and where a patent suit can be filed.
Karnataka High Court: ED Cannot Act as a ‘Super Cop’
In a batch of writ petitions led by Y.B. Ashwathanarayan v. Union of India, Justice M I Arun of the Karnataka High Court quashed money laundering proceedings that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had built on a land grant case in Malur, Kolar District. The underlying criminal complaint had come to an end, and when the ED passed information about a separate recruitment matter to the local police, the police did not act on it. The ED then filed its own private complaint seeking a referral of that matter to the Lokayukta Police.
What the court held: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the court said a money laundering case cannot survive without a live predicate (scheduled) offence. The ED’s power under the PMLA is derivative, not original, so it cannot open an inquiry on a standalone suspicion of money laundering. Where it finds material on a scheduled offence, its role under Section 66(2) is to share it with the agency concerned, not to prosecute it itself. The court observed that the ED “is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything”, held that the PMLA does not contemplate private complaints by the ED, and directed return of seized articles to a petitioner.
What it means for you: Individuals and businesses facing ED action should first examine the status of the underlying criminal case. If that case has been closed, quashed or never existed, the money laundering proceedings may be open to challenge. The ruling also limits the ED from stepping into the shoes of the police when local investigators decline to act. The ED may appeal, so the final position could still change.
For guidance on PMLA and economic offence matters, see our page on Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: IVF Age Limit Applies on the Day of Transfer
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided six petitions led by Veena Devi v. Union of India. In the lead case, a couple had frozen embryos in 2023 when both were 47. After two unsuccessful attempts, the wife turned 50 in December 2025, and the couple sought permission to transfer the remaining frozen embryos. The Union of India opposed the petitions.
What the court held: Under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, a woman must be below 50 and a man below 55 to receive ART services. The court held that the age limit must be met “on the day these services are availed”, at every stage of treatment, including embryo transfer. Freezing embryos earlier does not create a vested right to complete the treatment later. The limits apply to each spouse separately, and the court refused to read in a combined age for the couple. It noted that a woman within the age limit can access ART independently even if her husband is over 55. The court declined to follow an earlier contrary Calcutta High Court view.
What it means for you: Couples planning IVF, including NRI couples who may plan treatment in India, should factor in the woman’s age at the time of each future embryo transfer, not just at the time of freezing. Frozen embryos may become unusable in India once the age limit is crossed. With High Courts taking different views, this issue may eventually need to be settled by the Supreme Court.
For advice on family and fertility-related legal questions, visit Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Customs Order Citing Untraceable Judgments
A Division Bench of Justices MS Karnik and Sandesh D Patil of the Bombay High Court quashed an order dated 11 August 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) in Quanta Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs. The company argued that the order cited two Supreme Court judgments that could not be found in any database, suggesting they may have been generated by artificial intelligence. When asked for copies, the department did not supply them.
What changed: The Customs department agreed that the order could be set aside and the matter reconsidered. The court quashed the order with consent and sent the matter back, directing the company to appear before the authority for a fresh hearing. The company had relied on a 2026 Supreme Court decision calling for a “zero-tolerance” approach to unverified AI-generated precedents.
What it means for you: Businesses and taxpayers who receive tax, customs or regulatory orders should check every judgment cited against them. If a cited case cannot be traced, that is a serious ground to seek its copy and, if necessary, to challenge the order. The episode is also a reminder that any party using AI tools in legal drafting must verify each citation.
For help with customs and indirect tax disputes, see Taxation Law.
Telangana High Court: Magistrates Must Not Pass ‘Rubber Stamp’ Cognizance Orders
In Sri Koduru Pitcheeshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court set aside a cognizance order passed by a magistrate in Ranga Reddy District under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The magistrate had taken cognizance against the accused persons instead of the offence and issued summons without recording the date of cognizance. The State conceded the error.
What the court held: Following settled Supreme Court law, the court reiterated that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and that taking cognizance and issuing summons are separate stages that cannot rest on cryptic orders. The court noted that it had set aside more than 500 such orders since January 2026, forcing cases to restart. It directed the magistrate to decide afresh and asked the Telangana State Judicial Academy to train judicial officers on the law of cognizance.
What it means for you: If you have been summoned in a criminal case, the summoning order should show that the magistrate actually applied their mind to the material. A mechanical order can be challenged, although the usual result is a fresh order rather than an end to the case. For complainants, a defective order can mean delay, so it is worth checking that the order is properly reasoned.
For assistance with challenges to trial court orders, see High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Bombay High Court: Section 75 BNS Protects Transgender Women Too
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur, in Vishal Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra decided on 3 November 2026, dismissed a revision application by an accused who sought discharge. He faced charges under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. He argued that Section 75 protects only a “woman” and so could not apply to a transgender complainant, and that she obtained her transgender identity certificate only after the alleged incidents.
What the court held: The court rejected both arguments. It held that the complainant’s self-identification as a woman cannot be questioned at the discharge stage, that charges of assault and outraging modesty can be sustained where the victim is a transgender person who identifies as a woman, and that a delay in obtaining the formal certificate does not bar penal provisions. The case will go to trial.
What it means for you: Transgender women can invoke the women-protection provisions of the new criminal code, and the absence of a certificate at the time of the incident is not fatal to a complaint. Accused persons should note that technical arguments on identity are unlikely to succeed at the threshold stage.
For help with criminal complaints and trials, see Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Few Sales Invoices Do Not Decide Where a Patent Suit Lies
In SML Limited v. Mohan & Company, decided on 15 October 2026, Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered a patent infringement suit over an agricultural product. The patent holder relied on four purchase invoices from a retailer in Theog to show that the product was sold in the State, and had earlier obtained an ex-parte interim injunction.
What the court held: The court held that the invoices alone did not establish territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff also had to show prima facie that the manufacturer supplied the product to the retailer for sale in Himachal Pradesh, and there was no such material, nor evidence of any online transaction in the State. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, clarifying that its observations would not affect the main suit.
What it means for you: Businesses enforcing patents, trademarks or other IP should build solid evidence linking the defendant’s supply chain to the chosen forum before filing. Test purchases from a local retailer may not be enough on their own, and a weak jurisdictional foundation can cost a party its interim injunction.
For IP enforcement and protection, see Intellectual Property Rights.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affect you or your business, you can book an online consultation to discuss your specific situation.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.