1. In Suraz India Trust vs Union of India, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 129 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record and grants it the authority to punish those who defy it. The authority to penalise for contempt is vested in the government and cannot be taken away by legislation. Given the substance of the contemnor, the most recent apology is neither an apology nor a defence.
2. Following the tragic event of the Rohini District Court shooting, the lawyer in Rishi Malhotra vs Union of India petitions the Supreme Court for directions to reduce the physical appearance of undertrials in courts, claiming that this not only endangers the safety of lawyers, the public, and judicial officers, but also allows criminals to flee.
3. In Husna Banu vs. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a mother's right to breastfeed her child is a basic right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The right of the kid to be nursed runs concurrently with the mother's right to do so. Children are not chattel to be divided between their genetic mother and a stranger based on their numerical abundance.
4. In Nikhil Padha vs Chairman Human Rights Commission for the reopening of certain commissions that were closed after the repeal of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court stated that public interest litigation or social interest litigation is not a panacea for all ills. A fee of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed by the court for submitting such a petition.