Every day brings new court rulings that can affect ordinary people, families, and businesses across Punjab — often without anyone outside the legal profession noticing. This digest picks out a handful of genuine developments from the Supreme Court and High Courts over the last day or two and explains, in plain language, what happened and why it matters. It’s meant for anyone in Patiala and Punjab who wants to stay a little more informed, not just for lawyers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Tells Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to Fix Responsibility for Pension Delays
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to issue clear circulars fixing personal responsibility on the “Head of Office” whenever pension and gratuity papers of a retiring government employee are not processed on time. The Court observed that it is the Head of Office who is duty-bound to prepare a retiring employee’s file well in advance, and that officials who cause delay through carelessness should be penalised — not the retired employee, who ends up running from pillar to post for money that is rightfully theirs.
This is a welcome development for the many government employees and pensioners in Punjab who have had to approach court just to receive retirement dues they had already earned. If you or a family member are facing an unexplained delay in receiving pension, gratuity, or other retiral benefits from a government department, this is exactly the kind of situation our civil litigation practice handles regularly.
Source: LiveLaw
Supreme Court: Police Cannot Ordinarily Investigate Sex-Determination Offences
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot, as a general rule, investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, which bans sex-determination tests before birth. The Court held that only the “Appropriate Authority” specially designated under the Act can file a complaint, and a Magistrate cannot take cognisance of such an offence merely on the strength of a police report. The police may only play a limited, supporting role when the Appropriate Authority asks for help.
In simple terms, the Court has said that these are specialised, sensitive matters requiring medical and technical understanding, so the ordinary FIR-and-police-investigation route does not automatically apply — a designated authority has to lead the process instead. Questions about who can register a case, when a police FIR is valid, and when it can be challenged come up often in our criminal law practice, and this ruling is a useful reminder that different special laws can follow different procedures.
Source: Bar & Bench
Delhi High Court Questions Why Live-In Partners of the Same Sex Can’t Be Medical Decision-Makers
Hearing a petition on medical consent rights for same-sex partners, a Delhi High Court judge orally asked the Central government why the law, which already recognises live-in relationships between a man and a woman, would not similarly recognise one between two men. The petition, pending for over a year without a government response, seeks guidelines allowing same-sex partners to be treated as medical representatives — able to give consent and be present during a partner’s treatment or medical emergency, the way spouses and family members currently are.
The case highlights a real gap: current hospital and consent rules are written around spouses and blood relatives, leaving many long-term partners with no clear legal standing in a medical emergency. Questions about relationship recognition, rights of live-in partners, and family law protections are ones our matrimonial & family law practice is regularly asked about.
Source: Bar & Bench
Supreme Court Set to Rule on the Three-Year Legal Practice Requirement for Judicial Service
A Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was scheduled to pronounce its verdict today on review petitions challenging the Court’s May 2025 ruling that made three years of practice as an advocate mandatory before a candidate can sit for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. During the hearings, the CJI had flagged concerns that the rule could disproportionately affect women candidates and create a difficult gap period for fresh law graduates. As this digest goes out, the final outcome of today’s verdict was still emerging in the news cycle — we’ll cover the result and what it means for judicial service aspirants once it is officially confirmed.
Source: LiveLaw
Have a question about a similar legal issue affecting you or your family? Get in touch with our office in Patiala and we’ll be happy to guide you.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.