Top 15 Legal Current Affairs: March 2025

This month the legal landscape of India has been marked by some pivotal and highly debated cases that have sparked public discussion. From the controversial remarks by comedian Kunal Kamra to the investigation into Justice Yashwant Varma following a cash discovery, these events have caught the attention of both the public and the media. Issues of freedom of speech, judicial accountability, and legal ethics are at the forefront.

In this blog, we have covered key news and cases, also examining their legal implications, public reactions, and ongoing developments. Let’s begin.

#1 Kunal Kamra called out Deputy CM Eknath Shinde as 'Gaddar'

During a March 2025 performance at Mumbai’s Habitat Comedy Club, Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra performed a parody of the song "Bambai Nagariya", referencing Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde as a "gaddar" (traitor), alluding to the 2022 Shiv Sena split.

The performance led to outrage among Shinde’s supporters. A mob vandalized the venue, damaging property and causing public disorder.

Over 10 individuals were arrested, including Shiv Sena youth wing leader Rahul Kanal. FIRs were registered for rioting and damage to public property.

Kamra faced multiple FIRs registered against him for defamation and "hurting sentiments." However, he stood firm, defending satire as a form of democratic expression and refused to issue an apology.

The Key Legal Issue was around Article 19, Constitution of India – Right to Freedom of Speech and expression.

Current Status:

As of now, the legal proceedings are ongoing. Kamra has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court (Kunal Kamra v. State 2025), providing temporary protection from arrest. Final hearing is set for April 7, 2025.

💡Why Madras High Court?—Kamra being a resident of Tamil Nadu had approached the High Court there.

#2 Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row

On March 14, 2025, a fire at the official residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma led to the discovery of partially burnt bundles of cash in an outhouse.

Following the incident, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. The Centre approved the transfer but asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to assign him any judicial work until the inquiry is concluded.

💡 Who was included in Supreme Court Collegium?—Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justices - B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath

Simultaneously, the Delhi High Court withdrew all judicial responsibilities from Justice Varma and removed him from all administrative committees.

Current Status:

The investigation is being conducted by a three-member in-house committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna. The committee comprises:​
- Justice Sheel Nagu: Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.​
- Justice GS Sandhawalia: Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.​
- Justice Anu Sivaraman: A judge of the Karnataka High Court.

This panel is tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the cash discovery and assessing whether any judicial misconduct occurred.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) seeking registration of an FIR (First Information Record) against Justice Varma, observing that the in-house inquiry is still in progress and the petition was premature.

Meanwhile, several High Court Bar Associations have protested to withdraw the transfer order and suspend all work assigned to Justice Varma until the inquiry concludes.

💡 What Is Judicial Misconduct?

Judicial misconduct refers to inappropriate or unethical behavior by a judge that violates:
- Judicial ethics
- Constitutional duties
- Public trust in the justice system

💡 What Is Judicial Impeachment?

Judicial impeachment is the constitutional process for removing a judge of a High Court or Supreme Court due to proven misbehavior or incapacity.

Enables the Supreme Court Collegium to recommend the transfer of a High Court judge to another High Court for administrative reasons, often used in sensitive cases to maintain impartiality.

💡 Parallel News Block

This incident has also revived public memory of the 2008 ‘Cash at Judge’s Door’ case, in which former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmal Yadav was accused of accepting a ₹15 lakh bribe mistakenly delivered to another judge’s home. After a prolonged 14-year trial, Justice Yadav was acquitted by a special CBI court on March 29, 2025, due to lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. The parallels between these cases have reignited discussions on judicial transparency, due process, and the importance of safeguarding the credibility of the judiciary.

#3 Grabbing Breasts Not Attempt to Rape: Allahabad HC

In November 2021, two men allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old girl by grabbing her breasts, breaking the string of her pyjamas, and attempting to drag her under a culvert (—a pipe for water that goes under a road, etc.).

On March 17, 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Akash and Ors v. State Of U.P. and Ors 2025) held that these actions did not constitute rape or an attempt to rape but rather amounted to aggravated sexual assault under Section 354(b) IPC and Sections 9 & 10 POCSO.

After the media and public outrage, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter (In Re: Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) and, on March 26, 2025, stayed the High Court's order, criticizing it for a "total lack of sensitivity" and an "inhuman approach."

#4 Justice Joymalya Bagchi Sworn in as Supreme Court Judge

He was sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on March 17, 2025, following his appointment by the President.

Prior to his elevation, Justice Bagchi served as a judge of the Calcutta High Court from June 27, 2011. He was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court on January 4, 2021, and repatriated to the Calcutta High Court on November 8, 2021.

Future Chief Justice of India: Justice Bagchi is in line to become the Chief Justice of India on May 26, 2031, succeeding Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and will serve until his retirement on October 2, 2031.

#5 Anju Rathi Rana became India's First Woman Law Secretary

Dr. Anju Rathi Rana has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Law and Justice India, marking the first time a woman has held this prestigious position.

Prior to this role, Dr. Rana served as a public prosecutor in the Delhi government for 18 years and joined the Ministry as a Joint Secretary in 2017. She was promoted to Additional Secretary in 2022.

She assumed charge as the Law Secretary on March 7, 2025. Her appointment is for an initial period of two years from this date.

#6 Advocates cannot use Social Media for Promotion: BCI

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has banned advocates from employing Bollywood actors, celebrities, or influencers to promote their legal services, citing violations of professional ethics.

Lawyers are prohibited from advertising their services through social media, promotional videos, or digital advertisements, as such actions contravene Rule 36 of the BCI Rules.

💡Why?—BCI says that the legal profession is rooted in public trust and ethical standards and should not be commercialized through advertising or solicitation.

What if an advocate violates Rule 36?

If an advocate violates Rule 36 or any related professional conduct provision under the Advocates Act, 1961, Here’s what can happen:

1. Disciplinary Proceedings:

The BCI or the respective State Bar Council can initiate formal disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Act which outlines the procedure for handling complaints of professional or other misconduct against advocates.

2. Penalties that may follow:

• Reprimand (to tell somebody officially that he/she has done something wrong) or Warning
• Suspension of License to Practice
• Removal of Name from the Roll of Advocates (i.e., permanent disbarment)

3. Contempt of Court:

If the conduct is seen as undermining the dignity of the judiciary or misleading the public, the Supreme Court or High Court may initiate contempt proceedings, especially if it creates a false image of legal expertise or judicial outcomes.

4. Criminal Liability (if applicable):

In cases where false or deceptive claims are made (e.g., impersonation, forged credentials, misleading legal promises), criminal charges like cheating (Section 420 IPC) or impersonation can be invoked.

5. Public Blacklisting:

The BCI may name and shame violators in official bulletins or websites to warn the public and deter others.

#7 Mandatory Restaurant Service Charges are Unlawful: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court (National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) v. Union of India (UOI) 2025) ruled that service charges in restaurants and hotels cannot be imposed mandatorily; they must be left to the customer's discretion. 

The court emphasized that enforcing mandatory service charges constitutes an unfair trade practice and infringes upon consumer rights.

This judgment supports the Central Consumer Protection Authority's 2022 guidelines, which prohibit hotels and restaurants from automatically adding service charges to food bills.

The court suggested that terms like "service charge" can be misleading, as consumers might confuse them with government-imposed taxes. To avoid confusion, the court recommended using alternative terms such as "staff contribution."

The court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh each on the two restaurant associations that challenged the CCPA guidelines, directing that the amount be used for consumer welfare.

Preliminary Inquiry Before Every FIR

#8 NOT Mandatory before every FIR

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, claimed FIRs were being filed against him without inquiry to harass him. He asked for a mandatory preliminary inquiry before any new FIR.

💡What Is a Preliminary Inquiry?

Defined under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—A preliminary inquiry is a brief fact-checking process that police may conduct before registering an FIR, but only in certain types of cases where it’s unclear whether a cognizable offence has been committed.

💡 What is an FIR (First Information Report)?

Defined under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—An FIR (First Information Report) is the official written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence (i.e., a serious crime where police can arrest without prior approval from a magistrate).

While addressing this case (Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma V. State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2025) involving allegations of corruption and abuse of official position by, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma.

Supreme Court said “NO”: the Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh case was referred, and it does not create an absolute rule for a preliminary inquiry in every case — especially not where cognizable offences like corruption are clearly alleged.

Main Observation

The Court reiterated that if information clearly indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, police are obligated to register an FIR without conducting a preliminary inquiry.

A preliminary inquiry is permissible only when the information received does not definitively disclose a cognizable offence but suggests the need for further investigation to determine if such an offence has occurred.

The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is solely to ascertain the existence of a cognizable offence, not to evaluate the credibility of the information provided.

#9 Mandatory before FIRs in Speech-Related Offenses

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs for offences related to speech and expression.

This ruling (Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat 2025) was pronounced while quashing an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who was accused of promoting enmity through a poem titled "Ae Khoon Ke Pyase" on social media.

The Court emphasized that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence and did not promote animosity or hatred among communities.

This directive aligns with Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which permits such inquiries for offences punishable by imprisonment between 3-7 years.

The measure aims to prevent frivolous or unwarranted FIRs that could infringe upon the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that unsubstantiated allegations should not lead to immediate FIRs, as this could have a chilling effect on free expression.

#10 Commenting on Colleague's Hair Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay HC

An HDFC Bank employee remarked to a female colleague, "You must be using a JCB to manage your hair," and sang lines from the song "Yeh Reshmi Zulfein" during a training session.

Following the colleague's complaint, the bank's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found the employee guilty under the POSH Act, leading to his demotion.

💡 What is the POSH Act?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — commonly referred to as the POSH Act — is a key piece of legislation in India designed to protect women from sexual harassment at their place of work and to provide mechanisms for redressal of complaints.

The Bombay High Court (Vinod Kachave v. The Presiding Officer (ICC) and Anr. 2025) quashed both the ICC's report and the Industrial Court's ruling, reinstating the court found no sexual intent or unwelcome behaviour that crossed the legal threshold defined under the POSH Act. It emphasized that context and intent are crucial while interpreting what qualifies as harassment and the employee's previous and noting the complainant did not initially perceive the remarks as such.

💡 What is Sexual Harassment under POSH?

It includes unwelcome physical contact, advances, requests for sexual favours, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or any other unwelcome physical/verbal/non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

#11 AORs have the Duty to Attend Hearings: SC

The Supreme Court (Jitender@Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi 2025​) emphasized that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) must be actively involved in their cases, attending hearings and ensuring the accuracy of submissions rather than merely lending their names.

The Court observed that the practice of AORs "merely lending their names" without active participation undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Guidelines are being formulated to define the responsibilities of AORs, aiming to prevent misconduct and ensure diligent representation.

Persons With Disabilities (PwD) Rights

#12 Separate Cut-Off Mandatory For Persons With Disabilities (PwD)

The Supreme Court (In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. The Registrar General The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh 2025) has mandated that a distinct cut-off score be established for candidates in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category during judicial service examinations.​

This decision aims to ensure fair representation and equal opportunities for PwD candidates in the judiciary.​

The Court emphasized that treating PwD candidates on par with general category candidates without a separate cut-off violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

#13 Enforcement of Disability Rights in Prisons

A political activist from Kerala filed a PIL (Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India & Ors. 2025) seeking strict enforcement of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, in prisons nationwide.

The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union of India and relevant authorities, scheduling the matter for further consideration on April 8, 2025.

The petition underscores the lack of disability-friendly infrastructure in prisons, such as ramps and accessible toilets, which hampers the daily lives of inmates with disabilities.

The petition argues that the absence of reasonable accommodations for disabled inmates violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

#14 Differences Between Gift Deed, Settlement Deed, and Will: SC

The Supreme Court (N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.) elucidated the distinctions among gift deeds, settlement deeds, and wills, focusing on their execution, effect, and revocability.​

• A gift deed is a voluntary, irrevocable transfer of property without consideration, effective immediately upon acceptance by the donee during the donor's lifetime.​

• A settlement deed involves a voluntary transfer made out of love and affection, creating immediate property rights, often with a life interest reserved for the transferor.​

• A will is a declaration of the testator's intentions regarding property distribution after death, remaining revocable during the testator's lifetime.​

The Court emphasized that the nomenclature of a document is immaterial; its nature is determined by its content and the intent of the parties involved.​

#15 Rajasthan Introduces Bill to Regulate Coaching Centres

The Rajasthan government has tabled the Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2025, aiming to oversee the operations of coaching institutes, especially in Kota, a major coaching hub.

💡What does the bill say?

Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Bill 2025 is a proposed legislation that outlines the registration requirements, operational guidelines, fee structures, and penalties for coaching centres operating within Rajasthan.

The bill mandates mandatory registration for all coaching centres, with existing ones required to register within three months of the Act's commencement.

Key provisions include limiting coaching sessions to a maximum of five hours per day, ensuring a weekly day off, and implementing a fee structure that allows payments in at least four equal instalments.

Coaching centres found violating these regulations face escalating penalties: ₹2 lakh for the first offence, ₹5 lakh for the second, and potential cancellation of registration for subsequent violations.

The bill also establishes the Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Authority at both state and district levels to enforce these regulations and address grievances.

Conclusion

As the legal proceedings are ongoing, these cases continue to generate intense discussions about the balance between individual rights, judicial integrity, and public responsibility. The Kunal Kamra and Justice Varma cases particularly highlight the challenges of upholding free speech while ensuring that the judiciary remains transparent and accountable. These stories also emphasize the need for clear legal frameworks to protect both artists and public figures from undue harassment. With various legal provisions and precedents in play, it is evident that the coming months will bring more insights into how India's legal system adapts to complex issues in a rapidly changing world