Major High Court Verdicts of 2025
Here are the Major High Court Verdicts of 2025, covering key cases on bail for foreign nationals, export credit, sexual offences, and other legal issues.;
The article 'Major High Court Verdicts of 2025' tries to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of significant judicial pronouncements that have shaped the legal landscape this year. It explores key rulings on bail for foreign nationals, the enforcement of export credit, and the judiciary’s firm stance on zero tolerance for sexual offences. Additionally, it examines the legal obligations of live-in partners and the growing recognition of gender-neutral justice, including the acknowledgement of men as victims of domestic violence.
Through these landmark decisions, the article aims to highlight the evolving nature of judicial interpretation and its impact on legal rights and societal norms.
Major High Court Verdicts of 2025
1) Rajasthan High Court Imposes Contractual Obligation on Live-In Partners
In the case of Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025), the Court emphasized the urgent need for legislative clarity while also considering interim measures, such as the mandatory registration of live-in relationships, to ensure accountability and protection, particularly for women and children born out of such relationships. This case reflects the judiciary's struggle to balance constitutional rights with societal norms and legal principles.
Click Here and read more about this case.
2) Bombay High Court's Ruling: A Balanced Interpretation of Export Credit Regulations
The Bombay High Court in the case of Jindal Cocoa LLP & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (2025), delivered a well-balanced verdict, rectifying the arbitrary subvention reversal for the First Lot while upholding HDFC Bank’s stance on the Second Lot. This ruling clarifies the interpretation of export credit regulations and ensures that the Master Circular remains a facilitator of export finance rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.
Click Here and read more about this case.
3) Kerala High Court Emphasizes Zero-Tolerance for Sexual Offences
The case Biju Abraham & Varghese George v. State of Kerala (2025), concerns a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, Biju Abraham and Varghese George, challenging their conviction under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of a woman. The petition disputes the concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, and the Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta.
Click Here and read more about this case.
4) Delhi High Court on Gender-Neutral Justice: Men as Victims of Domestic Violence
In the case of Jyoti Alias Kittu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025), the court underscores the importance of a gender-neutral approach in adjudicating domestic violence cases. The ruling challenges societal stereotypes that depict men solely as aggressors and women solely as victims, advocating for equal treatment under the law.
It further highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and equality, ensuring that decisions are based on evidence and merit rather than preconceived biases or stereotypes.
Click Here and read more about this case.
5) Delhi High Court’s Ruling on Bail for a Foreign National
The case Aizaz Kilicheva @ Aziza @ Maya v. State NCT of Delhi (2025), pertains to the bail application of a foreign national, Aizaz Kilicheva, who was in judicial custody for alleged violations of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court granted bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two local sureties, one of whom must be a family member.
Click Here and read more about this case.
6) Legal and Moral Dimensions of Maintenance
In the case of Unneen v. Shoukathali & Ors. (2025), the petitioner, Unneen, an elderly individual, sought financial support from his sons under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). However, the Family Court of Tirur dismissed his plea, holding that he possessed sufficient means for sustenance. Dissatisfied with this decision, Unneen challenged the verdict by filing a revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
Click Here and read more about this case.
7) A Legal Examination of Caste Certificate Claims
The Bombay High Court, in Swanubhuti Jeevraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), addressed the petitioner’s claim for caste recognition based on her mother’s lineage. The case raised key constitutional issues on caste identification and eligibility for reservation benefits under social justice policies, with potential implications for affirmative action and equality laws in India.
Click Here and read more about this case.
8) Scope of Magistrate's Power to Transfer Cases
The case, Sudesh Chhikara v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2025), involves a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), West Delhi in Case M-17/2024 titled Baljeet Singh v. Sudesh Chhikara. The impugned order directed the transfer of a complaint case from the court of MM-07, West, Tis Hazari Court to the court of MM-02 (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, where another connected matter was pending adjudication between the same parties.
Click Here and read more about this case.
9) Doctrine of In Pari Delicto
The case Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Another (2025) arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioner, Smt. Anupama Biswal before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, seeking the quashing of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The complaint registered as ICC Case No.208 of 2021, was initiated by the opposite party No. 2 for the alleged dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioner.
Click Here and read more about this case.
10) 50% Minimum Marks Rule for District Judiciary
In the case of Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others (2025), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon’ble Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Gupta. The court upheld the validity of the 50% minimum qualifying mark requirement, stating that it was a reasonable and lawful measure aimed at ensuring the recruitment of highly competent judicial officers.
Click Here and read more about this case.
.................................Additionally, more cases will be added.