Nominal Index [Citations 206 - 219]Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Sakshi Malik and others 2025 (PH) 206 RXXXXX v. XXXX 2025 (PH) 207Tushar Tanwar v. Bar Council of India 2025 (PH) 208Jatinder Singh v. State of Haryana 2025 (PH) 209 Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2025 (PH) 210Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 (PH) 211Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations 206 - 219]
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Sakshi Malik and others 2025 (PH) 206
RXXXXX v. XXXX 2025 (PH) 207
Tushar Tanwar v. Bar Council of India 2025 (PH) 208
Jatinder Singh v. State of Haryana 2025 (PH) 209
Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2025 (PH) 210
Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 (PH) 211
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 212
Keval Singh @ KV Dillon v. State of Punjab LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 213
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 214
Amandeep Singh @ Aman v. State of Punjab LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 215
PXXXXX v. State of Haryana and others LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 216
Harsimran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 217
Virender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [with connected matters] LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 218
Inspector Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana and others LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 219
Reports
Title: Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Sakshi Malik and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 206
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the essential qualification for the post of Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) should be in conformity with the Right To Education Act (RTE) and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) which is either Diploma in Elementary Education or Bachelor in Elementary Education.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Chandigarh Administration. challenging the order of CAT which had directed to consider the candidates for recruitment of JBT possessing either Diploma in Elementary Education or Bachelor in Elementary Education.
Title: RXXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 207
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that for determining Court's jurisdiction "ordinarily resident" of child need not be permanent or or uninterrupted residence.
According to Section 9 of the Guardians And Wards Act, if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor "ordinarily resides."
Title: Tushar Tanwar v. Bar Council of India
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 208
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the petitioner challenging the fees charged by Bar Council of India for All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to challenge the Examination rule to enable the Court to look into the grievances.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel referring to Section 24 of the Advocates Act said the person can be admitted as advocates on a State roll, "subject to the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll...this is all subject to rules, you challenge the rules...if you don't challenge the examination rules, how can we help then?."
Title: Jatinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 209
"Opposing the release of an accused on bail solely because he refuses to testify against himself is a draconian practice that, in good conscience, cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by the Court", said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while allowing a pre-arrest bail in vehicle theft case.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that in the status report filed by the State it has been stated that the accused failed to cooperate during the investigation because he refused to answer questions, hence his custody is required.
Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation:LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 210
The Punjab and Haryana has held that persons involved in minor offences should not be deprived of the opportunity to serve in state services.
The development comes while upholding the validity of a provision of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015, which denies appointment to candidates against whom the charges have been framed for offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more.
Title: Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 211
Observing that "the act of coercing an ordinary citizen to pay a bribe for availing a rightful service amounts to gross misconduct," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a junior engineer accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1000 for signing a routine file.
The allegation against the government official, a junior engineer, was that he demanded Rs.1,000 to sign a file related to a routine electric connection transfer application.
Title: M/S SIEL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 212
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the arbitrary termination of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by the government for a project that had vested title over land amounts to a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "since therebys, there was complete vestment of right, title and interest over the subject ands vis-a-vis the petitioner...whereupon, when therebys the petitioner became endowed with the fundamental right to practice business and profession."
Title: Keval Singh @ KV Dillon v. State of Punjab
Citation:LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 213
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against the producer of movie "Shooter" for allegedly inciting youth to participate in armed activities, which were likely to affect public peace and harmony adversely.
The FIR was lodged under Section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 160 (Affray), 107 (Abetment) and 505 (Statements conducing public mischief) IPC.
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 214
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared the arrest of an accused in a drugs case illegal, finding that no reasons for the search of his premises were recorded and that the investigating agency also failed to provide the grounds of arrest in compliance with BNSS.
It was alleged that on basis of secret information, a huge amount of drug money was recovered in the form of foreign currency from accused person's premises.
Title: Amandeep Singh @ Aman v. State of Punjab
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 215
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a hair stylist and social-media influencer whose hair growth promising oil resulted into an allergic reaction, observing that "advertising a product making tall, misleading claims, without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up, must be strictly condemned."
Title: PXXXXX v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 216
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an FIR registered under the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cannot be quashed solely because on attaining majority, the victim chooses to enter into a compromise with the accused.
Title: Harsimran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 217
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has regularized the admission of a student who completed her degree while her plea challenging the order whereby her admission was cancelled was still pending, underscoring the "cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay."
Case Title: Virender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [with connected matters]
Citation:LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 218
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of part-time B.Tech (Civil Engineering) degrees awarded by Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, declaring them equivalent to regular courses for promotional purposes.
Title: Inspector Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana and others
Citation:LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 219
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Director General of Police (DGP) is empowered to review disciplinary proceedings, including orders exonerating police officers, within a reasonable period, even if no specific time frame is prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules.
Other Development
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Government to make immediate efforts to submit a proposal for the installation of security equipment and to take measures to strengthen security in Punjab jails.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda noted that as per Punjab's Chief Secretary response, the security equipment has been procured and is being installed in the jails.
Punjab Govt Moves High Court To Recall Order Directing It To Abide By Centre's Decision For Giving Extra Share Of Water To Haryana
The Punjab Government has moved an application before the Punjab & Haryana High Court to recall its order passed on May 06, which paved the way for the release of Bhakra dam water to Haryana, by directing it to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 02 conducted by Central Government's Home Secretary.
According to the Union Government's submission, on May 2, the Centre's Home Secretary at New Delhi convened a meeting and decided to release of extra 4500 cusec of water to Haryana in 8 days to meet the emergent needs of Haryana.
Case Title: Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Versus State of Punjab and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday (May 14) sought response from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) on Punjab Government's application seeking recall of Court's May 06 order, which paved way for release of 'extra water' from Bhakra Nangal Dam to Haryana.
A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asked BBMB, Haryana Government and the Union government to file a response and kept it for hearing on May 20, alongside the contempt case initiated against Punjab government in this matter.
Title: BHISHAM KINGER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken serious note of the allegedly deteriorating medical infrastructure in Punjab, especially Malerkotla district.
Amidst allegation of inadequate facilities, staff shortages, and lack of specialist doctors in the Government maintained hospitals in Malerkotla, the court has sought a detailed affidavit from the state's Health Department Principal Secretary.